Talk: Dragon Ball Z: Fusion Reborn

Did anyone notice after Veku recovers the first time in the Japanese and English dubbed version of this movie...[]

... How he gave Janemba the middle finger? And how it wasn't "edited" in the English dub?

Like right about 1:01 after his little speech about getting this over with in the Japanese. And at 3 minutes sharp in the English dub. o.õ
Ye... ah. That's almost all I wanted to check. The rest is just the question that bothers me: "Does this actually count as trivia? How Veku flipping Janemba off wasn't edited in the English dub?" --光に、闇に、虚無。 09:31, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

isn't it possible that the movie just takes place a few years after the fight against kid buu and goku and vegeta died again (not something very likely i admit but at least possible in the dbz timeline) ?

Guku and Vegeta were resurected during the fight against kid Buu while they are both in the Other World in this movie. Jeangabin666 14:07, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Villain Identification[]

Fusionreborn15 — Appule-like soldier behind Zarbon, and a Lord Slug minor soldier on the right hand bottom corner

It seems there is one of Lord Slug's minor soldiers on the right picture, only with yellow clothes instead of dark blue (same mistake as for Salza).

As well as Bio-Men and Appule-like soldiers. And maybe Doria between Salza and Sansho and below the Bio-Man on the picture below. Jeangabin666 20:32, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Fusionreborn8 — Nicky with Sansho's colors?? on the left

I haven't seen some villain listed on the page: Amond, Doore, Guldo (maybe he has the wrong colors??), Kishime, and Neiz. I'm not sure for Nicky as a character that looks like him appears, but he hasn't the good colors.

One of the villain looks like Commander Zeeun (horns and clothes) but with Ebifurya colors. Who is he? Jeangabin666 21:15, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Characters on the cover but that I haven't seen in the film: Cooler, Nappa?? (might be in), Raditz, Doria?? (might be in), Lord Slug, Ebifurya?? (see above).

Medamatcha appear but with a different coloring. Jeangabin666 23:02, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

One of Paragus' soldier also appears, but with different coloring (armor white instead of purple and skin light-purple instead of green). Jeangabin666 05:48, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

A soldier that looks like the leader of Dodoria's Elite appear but with a different coloring, as well as the member of Dodoria's Elite that is from the same species as Frieza Soldier in his alternative outfit of BT3.

Kogu can be seen behind Zangya just when her hair begins to appear on screen (he can be seen on the right-hand bottom corner of the screenshot on the right). Jeangabin666 14:07, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Wings appears but he is green and his armor is white (making it looks like more like one of Frieza's soldiers Armor). Bido appear with the living-deads that attack Satan, also with an unusual coloring. Jeangabin666 22:56, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

So does Nappa appear in Movie 12

No. Jeangabin666 13:24, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Why do they appear in diiferent colouring.

because they can Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito (talk) 14:11, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

The guy who was in charge of the coloring had a lots of work, he couldn't remember all the colors of all characters (at the time, most of the characters didn't ever appeared in any video game, they only appeared in their respective OVA and this was only their second appearance). Jeangabin666 14:18, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Why was Bido with the Living Deads instead being part of Frieza's Army.

Because this was more funny. Jeangabin666 18:19, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that's Bido? A lot of different colored lookalikes appear in DBZ as stock characters. Tokeupdude 16:58, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Villain Appearance[]

I haven't seen Amond, Doore, Guldo (different coloring??), Kishime, and Neiz in the movie. Can anyone confirm their appearance? Are they on the film's cover?? Jeangabin666 22:09, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

The name is DOdoria

and it's not him in all the pictures you mentioned

EDIT: oh, I was replaying to the guy with the pictures. Dodoria21 07:54, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

2nd EDIT: oh, it's you the guy with the pictures. Dodoria21 07:55, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

It's a pink big guy with spikes on the head and pointy ears.. this looks very much like Dodoria to me :p Jeangabin666 11:53, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

i think allof this is speculation Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito (talk) 14:12, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a better version of the film's cover? I think Amond and some other might be on it but the quality of the file on this page is very low. Jeangabin666 14:28, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Does Dr. Wheelo appear on the cover of the film 10:55 November 6 2010 (UTC)

It can be him (on right-hand top corner, above Slug) but we need a better quality image to confirm this. Also there is a character witha white cape that looks a Namek?? under Cooler's knee. Jeangabin666 13:35, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Android # 19 appear in Fusion Reborn.

No, he only escapes from Hell in DBGT. Jeangabin666 14:56, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Doore and Neiz appear in the Dragon Ball Z: Fusion Reborn

No, they don't. Jeangabin666 15:29, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Spice, Vinegar, Mustard and Salt appear in Movie 12

No they don't, only Garlic's henchmen from movie 1 appear. Jeangabin666 15:41, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Guldo appear in Fusion Reborn.

No, he doesn't appear in Fusion Reborn. Jeangabin666 16:03, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Captain Ginyu appear in the Fusion Reborn.

No. Jeangabin666 16:25, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Recoome, Jeice and Burter appear in the Fusion Reborn.

Yes, they can be seen on the screenshots here and on the article. Jeangabin666 16:39, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Nappa and Raditz appear in Movie 12.

They are only seen on the film's poster. Jeangabin666 16:51, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Angila appear in Fusion Reborn

Appearantly no. I haven't seen him or a character that looks like him with a different color in this movie. Jeangabin666 17:10, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Frieza Soldiers appear in the Fusion Reborn.

Not in his first outfit. If you consider Frieza Soldier's alternative outfit, a character that looks more like one of Dodoria's Elite appears (see the pics above). Jeangabin666 17:34, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Garlic Jr appear in Fusion Reborn.

No. Jeangabin666 17:47, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does the Galaxy Soldiers appear in the Fusion Reborn.

Yes. Jeangabin666 17:54, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Lucifer appear in Fusion Reborn.

No. Jeangabin666 18:04, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Broly appear in the Fusion Reborn beacaue at the end of Bio-Broly he is mentioned to be a resident of Hell.

He might be a resident of hell but he doesn't appear in Fusion Reborn. Jeangabin666 18:15, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Amond appear in Fusion Reborn.

He might be on the film's poster (on the left part between Zarbon and Nappa), but I can't find a high quality version of the poster to be sure. Jeangabin666 18:26, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does King Cold appear in the Fusion Reborn.

No. Jeangabin666 19:09, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

How many Villains do appear in the Fusion Reborn.

Héhé, countless. But from the anime series, only something like thirty or fourthy. Jeangabin666 19:20, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Kishime appear in the Fusion Reborn.

No. Here is a link if you want watch the movie: http://www.watch-dragonball.com/watch/508-dragonball-z-movie-12/ Jeangabin666 20:06, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't Cell appear in the Fusion Reborn because he is a resident of Hell.

Maybe he didn't wanted to return on Earth.. Jeangabin666 20:17, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does all the residents from hell appear in the Fusion Reborn.

No. Jeangabin666 20:39, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Buyon appear in Movie 12

No, there is no DB villains in this movie. Jeangabin666 20:49, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Salza and Cooler appear in Fusion Reborn.

i think salza does User:Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito/sig14 21:50, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Cooler appear in Fusion Reborn.

i didnt see him User:Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito/sig14 22:39, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Android # 13, Android # 14 and Android # 15 appear in Fusion Reborn.

No, there isn't any android in this movie. This also includes Cell. Jeangabin666 22:54, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Lord Slug, Medmatcha, Medas, Commander Zeeun, and Wings appear in Fusion Reborn.

Yes, you should really watch the movie.. Jeangabin666 23:22, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Does Spice appears in the Fusion Reborn.

no hes not important enough to appear User:Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito/sig14 00:23, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Does Tambourine, Cymbal and Drum appear in Fusion Reborn.\

for the love of god watch the freaking movie and find out yourself User:Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito/sig14 00:30, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Who else escapes Hell in the Fusion Reborn.

Nobody, all the villains that escape from hell in Fusion Reborn are already listed. Jeangabin666 13:24, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

So Hatchiyack doesn't appear in Movie 12

No, he is from a very rare OVA (at least at the time of movie 12 release). There is no way he could have been in this movie. Jeangabin666 14:06, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

and it still hasnt been dubbed so why would they put him in there User:Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito/sig14 14:09, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Does Frieza's Henchmen appear in Fusion Reborn.

yep, they do ; )

Does Pui-Pui, Yakon, Spopovich and Yamu appear in Fusion Reborn.

No. Jeangabin666 18:19, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia Section[]

Could I mention on there that this movie had the largest amount of villain cameo appearances out of any movie/episode? Tokeupdude 15:31, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Vegeta dont tell Goku that he knows about super saiyan 3 until Goku asks Vegeta to wear the potara earing before forming Vegito[]

As i saw in the movie, Vegeta is unimpressed when Goku is super saiyan three when he was fighting Super Janemba, but in the anime, when he comes back to earth to fight Super Buu with Goku, Vegeta goes super saiyan and Goku too to fight Super Buu, but Goku didn't want to become ssj3 to not make Vegeta feel weak, then Goku tells Vegeta that the only way to beat Super Buu is only to fuse with those potaras, but Vegeta refuses and he tells Goku that he is humiliated because Goku did not tell him that he can turn ssj3 and let him win when they last battled as super saiyan twos.

So this is a bad mistake if we dont care alot of the events that happend before the movie was made, so in my opinion i consider this movie as a complete filler fan-made movie, and also in the french version of the movie Vegeta says: Don't count on me to restart tomorrow , when defusing from Goku before becoming smoke and then dissappear wich may explain the reason Goku and Vegeta didn't fuse to kill Kid Buu but it counts only if this movie was canon, and if they add a scene when Vegeta sees Goku with his SSJ3 hair and then with quotes like thes: Is that you Kakarott? you look very different when we last see, how can make your hair grew in a such fast way? Yes it's me and this is a super saiyan three! What?!!! and removing the scenes where Vegeta is humiliated because of goku not telling him about SSJ3.

But referring to the manga, there is no moments where Goku and Vegeta use fusion dance to fight but its a good movie if the events happen after the defeat of Kid Buu —This unsigned comment was made by 174.94.109.231 (talk • contribs) Please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time!

First, please sign your posts. Second, check out the MoS for our stance on movies. 10X Kamehameha (talk) 06:15, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Vegeta wasn't there when Goku was a Super Saiyan 3 in Fusion Reborn. He arrived after, so didn't see Goku in that form in the movie. Jeangabin666 10:06, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with jeangabin, the movie is good on its own right why worry about little details its really meaningless to worry about it. Trunksl

Boo M[]

Have you ever seen that it is written "Boo" (the Japanese spelling of Buu) with an "M" similar to the Majin symbol on top of the green building on this image? JeangabinTalkContrib 23:07, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

SS form against Janemba[]

It is not stated in the movie in which form Goku and Vegeta battle Janemba. But in the BT2 and BT3 story modes, which has both characters in their SS and SS2 forms, they battle Janemba in their SS form: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e-t34WwyAU Also, when Goku and Vegeta fuse in the movie, Gogeta is a Super Saiyan, not a Super Saiyan 2. Same in Ultimate Tenkaichi, the SS2 form is not used in the battles against Janemba despite being available for the two Saiyans in the game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7SOsoqKwVA In Buu's Fury, which features the Fusion Reborn storyline, the SS2 form is not avalaible in the whole game. JeangabinTalkContrib 19:41, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

So we have source for saying that they're in their Super Saiyan form, but no source to they that they're Super Saiyan 2. Can the page be changed to include what is sourced instead of speculation?

JeangabinTalkContrib

12:50, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

Continuity[]

I just want to talk about Goku taking part in another Other World Tournament being removed from the Continuity section. I understand that it is theoretically possible that he may have left the Sacred Planet of the Kais to go participate, but I find that viewpoint to be extremely unrealistic. As the Continuity section notes, this movie seems to be vaguely set in a timeperiod after Goten and Trunks learn to fuse as SS and before Evil Buu emerges. Goku, at that point, was at the Sacred World of the Kais. The anime and manga both seem very clear that he spent all his time there until he had to leave to go help Gohan, and I find the notion that he offscreen left for a while to have some fun fighting in a tournament when his friends and family are struggling so much to be incredibly hard to believe. There is no way Goku would have just up and left at such a critical time, there was no interruption in that span in the show for that to have happened as he was watching Gohan or interacting with the Kais.

I also don't really get why the section seems to emphasize Gohan's clothing being improper rather than his actual presence on Earth, hanging with his friends, at a time when he simply should not be there but on the Kai's world. I think there really should be more emphasis on the latter, because if in Goku's case its being gone by the fact that he "may have gone offscreen" during his time on the Sacred World, then we could just as easily say Gohan may have changed his clothing offscreen and use that to fit it in continuity

I also know its not really as definitive, but the consensus everywhere else seems to be that this really is unbelievable to placed as happening during Buu's time ravaging Earth. All of the characters just seem to be chilling when all of these villains start showing up... not at all fitting well with Buu still being a problem. Vegeta also seemed totally unfamiliar with the concept of fusion when he met Goku during the Fusion saga, and their interaction seems more akin to the two having not seen each other since Vegeta's death. Any edits done to point out these problems get undone, and while I realize not everyone can share a consensus, the continuity section in my opinion seems to lean too much towards it fitting when 99% of fans tend to agree this is the one movie where debate over it fitting is nearly impossible.Scarletspiderfan 20:19, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

1. Whether you find the fact that Goku could have left the Sacred Planet of the Kais believable or not is irrelevant. The only point is that it could have happened. I don't know about the anime, but the manga never implies that Goku was with Gohan the entire time. Though unrealistic, it is not impossible.

2. Well, it does mention both. I don't know what more you want.

3. 99% seems to be a made up statistic, but the article never says it is or is not possible to be placed in continuity, merely that if we try to place it in continuity, that's where it should go.

Shakuran13 This ends NOW! 20:31, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

But this is an anime movie, so it really doesn't have anything to do with the manga series. In the anime series, Goku is very clearly there the entire time. And I would actually argue that it couldn't have happened, watching this movie the characters very clearly are not dealing with Buu simultaneously with this sudden attack by Janemba. I know its theoretically possible, but people don't really act in such strange ways in a situation like that; the characters are seemingly in a time of peace when they're interrupted by Janemba's appearance.

Yes 99% is a made up statistic, of course there is no official way of measuring it but most of what I've heard seems to judge this as one of those movies that don't fit. My point though is that these are actual issues with placing it in this area, so they at least deserve being mentioned. The section is lengthy in placing it somewhere, only to provide a one sentence thing of oh Gohan's there at the wrong time in the wrong clothes. It seems it could be more informative on how it could not fit.

Also, why a GBA game that loosly adapts the series is being used to place this movie in continuity is lost on me. Videl's watch and simple deductive reasoning seem like enough to place it somewhere, so I don't understand why Buu's Fury (mind you, the paragraph on it more or less just replicates the info in the other paragraph that place it in that one timespan) is used in discussions of continuity. Essentially, what I'm saying is the section could be simplified rather easily than being so detailed, simply stating that it seems placeable in that episode span then just pointing out Gohan's status screwing with that (if people really feel the Goku in Tournament thing isn't an issue). I also think its smoother to lay out where it could be placed, then saying what issues there are with that, rather than going back and forth and mixing problems with placement. Long sentences and repetition of info makes it look rather messy.Scarletspiderfan 00:28, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Shakuran13. We need to stick to listing facts and leave out our personal opinions and feelings. --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 03:02, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, and your point is fair but I really think it is fact that Goku wouldn't have left. The storyline of the Buu saga simply couldn't have had an interruption like that where everyone just went off and did their own thing offscreen right in the middle of the ongoing story, given DBZ's extremely serialized method of storytelling. Its like saying Batman could've fought another villain in between scenes of the Dark Knight or something (and even that provided legit downtime for the character where he wasn't actually in the middle of something. This line of thought is so much more speculative and less factual then simply going by what's onscreen like I'm saying; using the logic of "it could happen offscreen.", you could place any of the movies almost anywhere in the series. And there's more to it than just my personal feelings on where it does and doesn't fit. You didn't address it, but I'm curious what your opinion on Buu's Fury being usedScarletspiderfan 00:46, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

It can't be a fact if there is no evidence other than you really thinking it. Despite our feelings, which are of course different from each reader to the next, avoiding an inconsistency by listing only evidence takes precedence in an encyclopedic site like this one. A character making an unexpected decision is surely within the realm of possibility in a world where humans can fly. --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 12:54, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

But there is no evidence of Goku making that decision either. My evidence is what happened during the actual storyline of the show. I understand what you're saying, but I don't understand how a hypothetical possibility is considered evidence and following the actual storyline of the show isn't. And I'm making other points that you're not really responding to so I'd like to know what your feelings on those are as well?Scarletspiderfan 20:37, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the movie events occurred are not hypothetical. Your feelings about Goku are opinions, not facts. Stating my own feelings wouldn't help either, since my statements are not official media, whereas the movies are. --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 01:19, June 23, 2012 (UTC)

First off to reiterate, there are other things besides the Goku thing that I mentioned earlier that you're not discussing that I'd like to get your view on. It is your "feelings", meaning your perspective on the official media that I was referring to if you could discuss those? Such as Vegeta not being familiar with fusion when he came back to Earth against Super Buu, or the other characters not being on the Lookout. And also, given that you've agreed with the position it is unlikely that he left, but possibility is the key, why is it that both possibilities don't get mentioned in a section that is meant to be neutral and lay out what could and couldn't work as part of continuity?

Since that seems unlikely, back to the topic at hand. Its not the movie that I'm saying is hypothetical, its the position that Goku could have left during the course of the series that is. "It's possible" isn't really evidence. The DBZ anime is serialized, with all the episodes running consecutively, with no jump in time outside of spaces between sagas. Essentially, that means that for Goku to have left it would have been between scenes in the series. If he was away briefly, then fine, but playing an entire tournament to get to a Goku/Pikkon final would have taken a considerable amount of time. Since you've said yourself that evidence and facts are what is important, I'd like to know what evidence or facts there are that support the position that he left for a good while and this is during the Fusion Saga, since the anime series has him on the Supreme Kai planet the entire time and the section notes that the movie clearly does not have Majin Buu prowling around Earth. I'm using the official media to back my end of the discussion, wheras saying Goku could have left is what is speculative and requires making assumptions. Gohan's presence being an issue is mentioned in the continuity section despite the same logic making it possible he left, so why a double standard with Goku?Scarletspiderfan 18:10, June 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think you're going to have a hard time getting anyone to agree with you until you get past the issue of your own opinions and logic being completely unavailable to use here when they contradict the events of official media. "It's possible" is indeed evidence when the situation is a choice between a possible thing and a contradiction. We will always choose the possible over the contradiction, simply because that is how an encyclopedia works. Compared to an option with no contradictions, the other case is most definitely not a possibility. --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 20:02, June 23, 2012 (UTC)

We have two very different interpretations of this discussion, and I'm getting the sense you are not even reading my entire posts. You keep repeating that what I'm saying is an opinion and that I'm ignoring the official media. But what separates opinion from fact? That would be actual evidence....from the official media... which I've given quite a bit of. This isn't as simple as just picking between a contradiction and a possibility, its picking between evidence from official media and assumptions about that media. A professional encyclopedia should always use evidence and not rest on assumptions. If you scroll up this page alone or look at any other talk page where there has been debate, you will see so many instances of other users (yourself included) arguing that evidence and sources are the most important thing. I could make so many claims about the show just based on possibilities, from Vegito being a SS2 to Cell being stronger than Broly that contradict official media, and there is no way that it would be tolerated just because its possible. You're still ignoring large parts of my posts, both actual evidence from the most official of media there can be (the show itself) and the inconsistency of the same position saying Gohan could have left but it still being on the continuity page. Even if a possibility is evidence, there is overwhelmingly more evidence in favor of the contradiction. It is not stated in this movie that Goku is away nor is there an instance in the series where he decides to, making his departure the unproven assumption. The official media itself, from the character plotlines in this movie to the events of the anime series, strongly points to it not being in the realm of possibility. And to repeat, and by your own admission, it is evidence and facts that are important. Mere possibilities may well be important, but only in the absence of facts disproving them. There are an incredibly broad number of possibilities in discussions of continuity, and the facts of the show point against it being possible.

Since we are discussing something "in the realm of possibility" and not definitively stated nor shown in the media we are discussing, I still do not see why it is not at least mentioned in the section, (and I'm not even saying it should be outright declared a contradiction, merely that it seems like an issue but might be possible). Possibility =/= fact, yet the absence of at least a mention in the section all but declares it a fact that Goku left offscreen, which evidence once again leans heavily against. And your statement of choosing possible over contradiction....that doesn't seem to be consistently applied, given the Gohan issue being stated in the section.

"Compared to an option with no contradictions, the other case is most definitely not a possibility" And the option with no contradiction is that he didn't leave and its not in continuity, making the option against it not a possibility. I don't mean to come across as abrasive by underlining and italicizing things, but I really feel you are missing parts of what I'm saying. Declaring something a non-issue does not make it so.Scarletspiderfan 01:12, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

You are currently changing the tone of the discussion from the topic at hand to your personal (incorrect) guesses about my actions. I read every post fully and give you the response that fits according to my perceptions. I can't help it if you would like me to say something else, but your view of this topic just happens to differ from mine and the other users who have posted. In this case I stand by the community's previously established viewpoint, which is that something that agrees with all facts in the series to some degree is possible, while something that contradicts the series to any degree is not. --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 02:35, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

The manga doesn't state that Goku stayed with Gohan the whole time. We see Old Kai starting his ritual after the introduction dace, then Gotenks vs. Super Buu, and then the group again on the Supreme Kai's planet when the ritual is already finished since several hours. The continuity section is made to find a placement for the movies, not to state that it happened in an alternate timelime where SS3 Goku or Gotenks defeated Majin Buu, so this and this happened... which would be the real speculation. JeangabinTalkContrib 10:37, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

10x, I'm not trying to distract by making the issue about you're actions. You're position seems to be "its possible and thus is a non-issue". That's fine if that's majority view of how it should be done, but it doesn't change that is not being applied consistently, as I have pointed out which is what continues to be ignored. My actual point of disagreement is that I have been giving legitimate reasons on my side the entire time as to why it seems impossible, only to see you respond with "its your opinion and facts are important. Its possible" each and every time. Well... what makes it possible? I've said why it doesn't seem possible many, many times, but your response has been that its just my incorrect opinion and its possible just because it is. I have not read any evidence from you as to why it is even possible, and what I'm saying (and what you said before) is that evidence is what is the most important thing on a wiki that strives to be as factual as posssible.

Jeangebin, on the other hand, has now actually entered to discuss. I would like to first point out that this is an anime movie (that features anime-only villains as part of the escape from Hell no less) so I'm not sure why the manga continuity is to be given more weight than the anime itself. But as a response anyway, you seem to be saying that because it is not explicitly stated he did not leave, then that is the evidence. But what about all the evidence that says otherwise? I'm sorry, but evidence leans towards him not leaving. He is not shown leaving, so how can it not being explicitly stated he left by itself override the numerous evidence that said otherwise? I made no mention whatsoever or speculated at all about an alternate timeline where events were different. As you've said the continuity section is made to find a placement for the movies, but every continuity section on this wiki points out what may be right or wrong with placing it in a certain spot. With the "possibility approach", why are continuity conflicts even mentioned in any continuity section if it something not being explicitly stated is all that is necessary to disprove it? And why is not used consistently? Example for both - Gohan in this section alone, or everything mentioned as a problem in the continuity section for Bio-Broly. Scarletspiderfan 19:41, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

What makes it possible is not contradicting the series. What makes other things not possible is contradicting the series. Perhaps someone with better communication skills than me can explain this better, but the logic is sound and we can't use your idea. Sorry for any inconvenience. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 20:31, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize, as I know it is not personal. But I will, as a final statement, reiterate that the logic itself is not being followed in this case. At the end of the day, it is a contradiction of the series to say he left, since it is never stated nor shown in the official media. It requires assumption to say he did, making the position he left speculation no matter how many times it is reiterated that I am the one speculating. And it still logic that is being used selectively, as I have given numerous instances of and which continues to go without a rebuttal and be ignored no matter how many times I point it out. Scarletspiderfan 20:58, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

Buu's Fury shows that Goku wasn't with Gohan the whole time.

JeangabinTalkContrib

18:39, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Buu's Fury is also an adaption of the series that is not in the same continuity as the series, it takes several liberties with the storyline for gameplay purposes, it is not the series itself. It even alters the events of Fusion Reborn itself to squeeze it more fluidly into the Buu saga, which would introduce more issues. It would be like saying Budokai 2 is in continuity with the series and using it to explain problems with an anime storyline, despite it being a video game retelling. But if this wiki's position is that GBA games that are remakes/retellings have weight in continuity and can solve contradictions between anime and movie, then I'm willing to admit that does work as evidence. What I do still feel is an issue is that these types of issues (issues being problems that are "solvable" by being possible offscreen) are mentioned in every continuity section for every single movie (and mentioned how it is possibly solved), yet it goes without even a mention for just this one specific instance. Its that appearance of a double standard that is frustrating me and keeping me posting, not that I'm sure you don't enjoy a good old fashioned continuity debate between fans.Scarletspiderfan 02:12, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

There was no obligation for Goku to stay with Gohan the whole time. Goku's case is different to Gohan's.. Gohan had to stay on the planet of the Kais because of Old Kai's ritual, not Goku.. If it's possible that Goku leaved behind screen without altering the original manga storyline, then it's not a continuity issue.

JeangabinTalkContrib

09:24, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

I think the current edit is actually a nice little middleground there mentioning how it was not seen, which is something I must've have missed since I first opened the topic or was done w/o me noticing since then. Regardless, thank you for clearing up the differences and the logic and taking the time to courteously respond. Perhaps it was my own fault, but I just wasn't able to get it the way 10x was explaining.Scarletspiderfan 20:08, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

The article must be left the same until discussion is concluded. Currently we will not be changing it as a result of said discussion, so please refrain from doing so. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 22:32, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Look at the two recent edits before undoing them. You will see that I didn't change anything related to the content or discussion, there is just a grammar error in starting that sentence with "Even though," when there is no change in tense after the comma. I did not alter anything whatsoever related to the discussion, which i conceded.Scarletspiderfan 17:34, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 22:10, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

Np man, thanks again for taking the time to talk w/ me.Scarletspiderfan 16:15, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that if Gohan was on the Sacred Planet of the Kai's and Old Kai was doing his ritual on Gohan would make it impossible for Gohan to be on earth to punch Frieza which indicates a contradiction from the continuity thus in my opinion should make the movie impossible to place in the continuty. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 03:07, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Everyone has instant transmission by this point. Earth being overrun with enemies would be enough of a reason for a brief return. At the very least, far from impossible. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 03:23, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

"Everyone has instant transmission by this point."

Wait, what? Where is the evidence of this? Should I add this ability to people's articles? No offense, but this is a rather ridiculous claim.

03:34, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

The top Z Fighters all seem to have picked it up between the Cell Games and the Buu sagas. Even ignoring this, since it's by observation rather than specifically named, Supreme Kai demonstrates teleportation between planets several times, both himself and others, is with Gohan during his training. I'm not saying throw that in an article, but saying Gohan is helplessly stranded during his training would be incorrect. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 04:16, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen anything to suggest that anyone besides Goku and Supreme Kai can do any instant transmission. Goku specifically has to make the finger sign thing, which no one else ever does. Anyways, you are correct about the fact that it was possible that Supreme Kai teleported him. I find it unlikely, but whether we believe he did or did not teleport him, both theories are speculation.

04:45, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Both are indeed speculation, and notably one derives a contradiction while the other does not. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 05:16, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

I have been looking into this and I notice that this movie would have to take place in or in between episodes 253 to 256 as in episode 256 Goten and Trunks enter ROSAT and because Videl is dead before Goten, Trunks, and Piccolo can exit it it would be quit impossible to place it anywhere else do to other facts that cause issues to fit it into continuity. Also if I recall correctly I heard Goku mention that no one has taken him to the point of Super Saiyan Three, if that is the case then that means that was the first use of the transformation meaning it would occur before his battle with Majin Buu, which happens before Goku ever taught Goten and Trunks the fusion dance. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 14:25, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Well in fairness he said first use "since Majin Buu", so we wouldn't know if that refers to the battle with Fat or Kid Buu, but this movie certainly seems to denote the former (as you say 253-256) since Vegeta and Goku don't seem to have seen each other since their fight and Vegeta seems unfamiliar with Fusion here. Actually, thinking about that... wasn't he also unfamiliar with it when they became Vegito (another continuity problem if this happened b4). The issue you brought up with Gohan has been on this page for quite some time, but someone, not suprisingly, decided to remove it. Even if Gohan could be transported, its an odd claim that he was since that would mean the ritual would have had to have been interrupted even though Old Kai made a point out of him having to sit still the entire time. Also, everyone still on Earth thought he was DEAD at that point. Do Goten, Trunks, or Videl act in this movie like he has suddenly returned from the grave, does it seem like when he showed up to fight Super Buu that they had seen him since his "death". I know we're trying to find wiggle room here to avoid contradictions with the series.... but at a certain point it gets to be really reaching with how certain things fit. The characters don't even remotely act in this movie or in the series like these explanations actually happened. At this point, with how ridiculous the explanations and pretending there aren't coninuity issues has gotten, I have to question why even have a continuity section? The goal may be to avoid contradiction... but these explanations contradict the series themselves.Scarletspiderfan (talk) 17:26, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Scarletspiderfan, please stop using the excuse that something is unlikely as a reason to try and throw away non-contradictory events. DBZ is full of unlikely events and we don't throw away episodes that show unlikely things like humans flying. Further, even if the movie specifically wrote that it took place in an alternate universe where Goku and Vegeta never existed, we would have a continuity section for the purpose of explaining parallel events in the two timelines. In summary, please just state new evidence that you find and hold off on judgements. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 19:59, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Its not that its just unlikely, its that its impossible. And I just gave new evidence... as did SSJ4 Vegito, but I'll repost it again: everyone on Earth thought Gohan was dead until he showed up to fight Super Buu, but in this movie, its clear that's not the case. Do Goten, Trunks, or Videl act in this movie react to their dead friend suddenly returning from the grave? When he showed up to fight Super Buu, do they act like that they had seen him since his "death"? The answer is no, in either case. The ritual would've had to have been interrupted, even though he was told to sit still in the series. I've given an incredible amount of evidence as to how it doesn't fit this entire time even besides that, a lot of which was never even given a rebuttal. Again, I'm not saying its unlikely, its that what you're describing is impossible to fit into the sequence of events we see in the series. You've said something is possible when it doesn't contradict the series, but what you're describing contradicts both the serialized events of the series and this movie, with no evidence or dialogue present in either to support it. Both Goku and Gohan leaving is in contradiction to what we saw in the series, where they both decided to stay on the Sacred Kai Planet. As is Vegeta being unfamiliar with Fusion in the Fusion saga, or some of the other events of this movie.

As for the flying? That's part of the storyline, a power they're given that's given an in-universe explanation that makes sense with the in-universe physics and plotline of the show, that seems like an oversimplification to use that as a basis for writing off continuity errors. For the record, at this point I'm not even arguing for the section ot say it doesn't fit, but the problems should at least be mentioned for neutrality's sake.Scarletspiderfan (talk) 22:33, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding that the section should stay and that unlikely events, such as human flight, do in fact happen in the series. The characters not knowing that Gohan is alive is a good point that I agree should be added. Your rash assertions that there is some other, possibly not yet mentioned (since I've addressed everything else that you did mention) evidence that also acts as a contradiction makes it futile to discuss the movie fitting into the timeline are still counterproductive and should be omitted from future posts. In contrast with the many internal contradictions of DBZ, this single issue is notable but not dissimilar enough to those to simply cast the movie aside. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 00:01, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Well, seeing that we are not going to cast the movie aside, at least we should change the continuity section to point out that the movie will most likely have taken place anywhere withing the episode 253 to 256 timespan as it seems that is the most logical and possible only logical place to place it. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 12:11, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Well of course unlikely events happen lol but those aren't related to continuity was all I was saying, since those are integral part of the in-universe storyline that are explained. Regarding "rash assertions", I was referring to Vegeta not being familiar with Fusion in the Fusion saga as a possible issue as well as characters not being on the lookout. No abrasiveness is intented if it came across that way, but thanks again for your patience throughout the discussion..Scarletspiderfan (talk) 16:06, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand why people are even arguing that this can somehow fit into the storyline. It can't. If Fusion Reborn took place between the Majin Buu Saga, then

1. Shouldn't the world be in panic?

2. Shouldn't Gohan be with Elder Kai and not wasting time being Saiyaman? It's not like he could just up and leave when such an important issue was going on....

3. Why is Goku fighting in a Tournament when Gohan is with Elder Kai and the world is in grave danger? It doesn't make sense.

4. Shouldn't Videl and the others be at Kami's lookout?

5. If Gohan was just taking a brief break, then why do we see him, Videl and the kids returning home at the end of the movie?

6. How can Gotenks go SS and also, why does he have his signiture attacks? These weren't achieved until much later...

Just my two cents. SP Gohan (talk) 16:26, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think #6 is necessarily a problem, as we don't know exactly that Gotenks didn't create those moves in the "253" area this seems to be set it. But regarding #2-5: The counterpoint is that because it is physically possible for the characters to all leave to take a break, then its reasonable for the section to be written as though its a given that the characters chose to do this. We seem to agree that it requires the characters to make the nonsensical choice to pursue leisure when Earth is in imminent danger (and I maintain that ommitting these conflicts b/t movie and series is neither neutral nor how the continuity sections have been written in the past), but there's not really any anything that can be said anymore to challenge this interpretation, so its a moot point at this juncture.Scarletspiderfan (talk) 19:06, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Please disregard my previous statements about 253 to 256, as upon further research I realize that 253 has the only, if any window of opportunity for the events of Fusion Reborn to take place in the series continuity. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15

There is no real way the movie can fit into continuity. None of the films were meant for that, they were meant to be side-stories just to cash in off of the franchise. Fusion Reborn especially doesn't try, even if the movies were meant to fit in the series, which would break much continuity if they were.

First off, where's Buu? Through a line of dialogue, Goku says he's only ever used Super Saiyan 3 once before, when fighting Fat Buu. Gohan, during that fight, was either unconscious/near death after his struggle with Buu, or more likely, training with Supreme Kai, wearing a completely different suit than his Great Saiyaman one. I really doubt Supreme Kai would just let Gohan "have a break", as it was clearly shown in the movie he was on Earth as if it was a normal day (no supernatrual villains). Also, while it doesn't break continuity, if this movie takes place before Vegito was created (because there's no way this movie took place around the time Vegito fought Super Buu or when Kid Buu was reborn), then it clearly has some issues with Vegeta. Firstly, Vegeta obviouslly knew how strong Buu was, as he couldn't even get close to defeating him before he sacrificed himself, and yet, even when he saw the stronger Super Buu, he refused fusion for quite a while. Why would Vegeta in Fusion Reborn accept fusion after a much less time deciding, and then after knowing how strong Buu is, refuse after? It doesn't make much sense to me.

The movies were not meant to fit in the series, I don't see why these connections need to be made. Possibly due to Dragon Ball GT using them in their recycled plot device of making the villains escape, but that alone raises too many unneeded problems for this particular debate. There's my two cents. User:The Goatee/sig 12:09, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

It's true that the movies were clearly written with being exciting and having some new characters in mind, rather than advancing the plot in the way that a regular episode would. However, they are are still aimed at a particular point in the chronology, and telling the readers when it was is the main goal of the continuity section. I am not sure why continuity was evolved into that purpose plus the addition of listing inconsistencies, which would normally be in the trivia section of an article. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 20:43, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

If there were "estimates" on where the film places in terms of continuity, but didn't make it too much of a deal, that wouldn't be a problem. The problem is, many people attempt to place these movies in the series itself, despite the fact none of the villains are ever referred to in the series directly, and just as stated before, the many, many numerous plot holes that follow in each one. While I understand that some films could easily fit in the series with not too many problems, such as Wrath of the Dragon, doesn't mean these films should be included while others are ignored. Either's it's have them all part of the series, or not, unless stated by the creators otherwise. User:The Goatee/sig 20:57, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well if it has to be all or none - and personally I don't know why you think that - and if we judge by whether or not the very few problems with a few of the movies is more or less than in the episodes, then we would have to pick to include all of the movies. However, since they are all official publications according to the creators and producers, we don't have to bother making such a decision. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 21:12, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well, personally, this may be just me, I don't see the reason for including a few of the films and then ignoring others, when clearly none were truly bothering to fit in the main story. What I mean is, they should really be considered like the Dragon Ball movies, none of them clearly fit into continuity at all. Just little side stories of their own, and I know that certain elements of the original series obviously have to be incorpirated for any slight bit to make sense (Goku having Super Saiyan), but it's just like the DB movies. They don't have this problem of the continuity debate, because it's so clear that they're side stories, while DBZ doesn't recycle the main plot from the first few episodes over and over again. User:The Goatee/sig 21:23, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the DB movies that change character names and redo main events are not meant to agree with the plot, whereas the DBZ movies do fit into the plot. I also agree that the use of the same characters and references to events show that all of the DBZ movies do try and fit in the main story (you said the opposite, but you didn't back it up and you went on to talk about the DB movies not fitting because they are different, so I assume that was just a typo). Multiple references in the manga and anime to the DBZ movies are additional evidence that the creators feel the same way. I mean unless there is a quote about Toriyama saying the movies are fake... someone should bring that up for me if they have it on hand. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 21:40, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

I guess it was a typo on my part, apologies. Anyway, the only movie that was guaranteed by Toriyama was Bardock, mainly due to that one panel in the manga. I don't really see any other claims saying "Yes, Goku and his friends totally broke out of character and left the earth to Cell while they went to fight Broly" or anything else concerning the other films. What I mean is, just like the DB movies, the DBZ movies were not "meant" to be put into the series. It's obviously fine to make comparisons as to what recent events the films were inspired by, as obviously, Toei wouldn't want to make a Dragon Ball Z movie about say, a relative of Frieza, when Buu has been defeated. I'm just suggesting that while a movie could fit into the series with relatively little problems, doesn't mean it was intending that or should be. I hope this debate doesn't drag out the article at hand, I'll just sum up what I think:

The movies were not intended to fit in the series, so there shouldn't be such as hasstle over it, and stuff like continuity errors and such should be mentioned on a less important part of the article. The main point of it is to discuss the movie itself. User:The Goatee/sig 21:59, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

I agree that continuity might be better off separate in articles from contradictions for the movies that have any. However, the evidence strongly disagrees with your other notion, that the movies were not intended to fit into the series. Your desired quote saying "Yes this happened" is answered by the indisputable fact that Toriyama and company officially published the events taking place. The burden of proving otherwise therefore falls on the side of the argument which claims that the creators somehow didn't want what they created to exist. The way that most movies have an isolated conflict and resolution, rather than a conflict drawn out through the series, does not make the movies less valid (series like Star Trek, Full Metal Alchemist, Cowboy Bebop, and The Simpsons all do the same thing). -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 23:01, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, I don't see anybody linking Toriyama and Toei's offical publications stating the movies perfectly exist within the anime series. If you can link me these, I'll gladly step aside and say I was wrong. I know the Star Trek movies exist in the real series, but most of them don't have glaring plot holes that completely rip apart the continuity and character development previously shown. These movies, (DB/Z/GT ones) are barely even movies, only clocking in around 40 odd minutes, only double the length of a normal episode. Star Trek films are a good two odd hours long, perfectly setting up where they're taking place. Sorry, I just don't see how anyone can look past the glaring plot holes that don't make sense when put together, such as Gohan being on Earth in Fusion Reborn, or how Android 13, 14, and 15 in in Super Android 13 exist, even though it is stated in the manga itself (trust me, I've read it), they those models were failures that were destroyed. It's stuff like this. Nobody would accept a Star Wars movie canon that had Luke Skywalker with an organic hand and Han Solo not in carbonite, with the 2nd Death Star complete set between episodes V and VI. I'm glad you agree the continuity thing should be moved someplace else, I just don't see how certain movies will be placed in the anime, considered to have actually happened in the anime itself, while others didn't. None of the movie villains are ever referred to in the anime, and the events in the movies do not have any consequences whatsoever on the anime story. At least from the transition from Cell to Buu, Goku had died, which effected a lot of the plot in the next saga. I don't want anyone to accuse anyone of being "wrong", I just would like to see some pictures of Toei confirming that these movies take place within the anime. If there was such proof, these continuity debates should not be nearly as discussed as they are. User:The Goatee/sig 23:21, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the official publication of a movie by Toriyama and Toei: Dragon Ball Z: Fusion Reborn. Now it's your turn, please provide the link where they say that they didn't intend for this to exist (what a big mistake they must have made to spend so much time and money on accidentally letting this leak if what you're saying is true). Like the Star trek movies, most of the DBZ movies don't have glaring plot holes that completely rip apart the continuity and character development previously shown. Also, what the heck does length have to do with the creators opinions?? You are tearing your own arguments apart as you write them; movies don't count because they are too similar to episodes, which you think do count - what? Every single Star Trek movie is based around previous assumptions being proved wrong, which is what makes the conflict exist in the first place. Oh Spock isn't dead? I guess that movie isn't canon because there was something surprising. Borg are closer to Earth than previously thought? No, that's not true because they hadn't revealed it yet, that movie doesn't count either. The movie villains are absolutely referred to in the anime, many of them twice. To throw out Garlic Jr., you would have to throw out an entire season of anime, as well as the manga. Maybe you don't want the manga to count, but the community has decided that it does. Since the existence of the movies is very, very obvious evidence of the publishers intent to publish, a quote about them not intending the movies to count needs to be provided, not the other way around. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 23:48, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 10X on one point that it is The Goatee's job to provide the statement that the movies don't count, rather than 10X's to find a statement that the movies do. Shakuran13 This ends NOW! 23:54, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

No, what I mean is, is that the Star Trek films take place after the original series. The original series ran from 1968 to 1969, the first movie was made in the 1970s, and set place after the original series. These DBZ "films" take place around when the series was made, difference. The reason I mentioned the length is not to dispute if they're canon or not, just something I'd thought to add to show that they really were not attempting to go for a huge, epic story, but just to churn out a film for some cash. Not needed, just a mention. Also, when did I say the movies didn't exist at all as actual prodoctions? I just say I find it glaring how some plot holes are shown, and I gave you some examples, but you just brushed them off, like the Android 13 thing. Please, I was never at all saying the movies don't exist entirely, of course they do, they're forms of media, I'm just saying that I don't see why people are trying so hard to try and place them into the series, when some of the plot holes stick out like a sore thumb. None of the villains are ever referred to in the anime itself, and that's one of the things. You'd think when Goku would try to convince Vegeta to fuse with the Potara (keep in mind, Vegeta didn't know that it was permenant) wouldn't you think Goku would make a subtle or non-subtle reference to Janemba, by saying "Come on Vegeta, we've already fused once!" or something like that. Also, just a side note, but did I scream at you and say your conversations we're falling apart? No, I didn't. Also, Bardock: The Father of Goku and The History of Trunks are canon, but they're specials, and they were specifically mentioned in the manga themselves, with The History of Trunks being an adaptation of a couple of panels set as a flashback. I really don't see how finding the movies not fitting in the anime makes me think the manga is non-canon, I don't see how you got to that point. The manga is the number 1 canon source.User:The Goatee/sig 07:40, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

PS. Here are the major plot holes I can remember from the top of my head.

Ok, so according to the Fusion Reborn article, it takes place between 258 and 259?

First, while that explains Buu's absence, why is Gohan there, in his Great Saiyaman suit? I really doubt Elder Kai could break his ritual, because if he did, it'd break exactly how a ritual works. You can't have a coffee break inbetween.
Why is Videl in the city?
How did Mr. Satan magically cross the desert, get to a city, and then go to the desert again? Why would Mr. Satan leave the city when his whole goal when wandering the desert was to find shelter?
Where's Bee?
How is Gotenks there, when he's fighting Super Buu in the Time Chamber?
Where is Piccolo? Piccolo was with Gotenks almost for the rest of the Buu arc when their fight in the Time Chamber began.

Those are the ones on the top of my head. If you can somehow rebuttal them, please do. I know you probably want to go more extreme in your words, but cannot, due to that breaking rules, I'd just appreciate it if we didn't resort to that. Thank you. User:The Goatee/sig 08:06, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

I really cannot answer the first question completely, but I do know that in episode 253, the only window of opportunity available that has been determined based on then current information at hand, Gohan was in the Meditation phase which occurs after the actual ritual itself and as seen in the Anime Gohan has broken meditation temporarily in anger. Meaning it is possible that on of the Kai's would have noticed the issue on earth of people escaping from HFIL. As for Videl, there is a possibility of an off-screen return to earth and then a off-screen return to the lookout with is similar to Gohan's case. In Episode 253 Mr. Satan goes to get dog food for Bee. Bee is with Buu. Gotenks isn't in the time chamber yet. I think that fact that Gotenks isn't in the time chamber helps explain Piccolo's absence. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 19:03, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

For anyone else reading, I wanted to copy something I wrote in a reply to an email for The Goatee to me:

"It's cool, I think everyone gets heated when it comes to canon/non-canon. By not taking a stance and instead letting readers decide, we avoid raging edit wars all over the site. Foreseeing the inevitable implications that would come with definitively ruling even one piece of media as "unofficial" or "doesn't count" or "didn't happen", or even the opposite and saying "this movie is canon," I do my best to avoid those types of statements. I think sometimes people think that I am arguing the latter, but I'm not. I'm simply disagreeing with the notion that either can be possible - or more practically - that either is a good idea to put in an article."

I think this might help to clarify that I'm not arguing for the movie being canon, I'm just arguing against both the stance that it definitely is or isn't based on our current information. Since the case presented is that it definitely doesn't, my replied must therefore be proof of merely the possibility that it does. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 00:05, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

See but "letting the readers decide" should entail explaining what does and doesn't make sense about placing the movie in a certain section. While I stated my belief that the movie does not fit, I was not (as I now think may have been misconstrued) arguing that the section should declare the movie non-canon, but that it should include the problems that come from placing it in certain spots. Noticeable problems like the characters leaving important tasks are, in fact, extremely relevant information in trying to place the movies in continuity. The section should simply lay out all evidence for both viewpoints, and let the readers make up their own minds. As its written now, with the conflicts censored out, the section outright declares the movie as being in that explicit place in continuity, which leaves users coming to the site looking for information with an incomplete picture of how the movie may or may not fit into continuity. If you really think that its possible it does fit into continuity (and still, some of these problems really are not explainable), then the section should explain how the problems we have described are solvable (which would also entail identifying said problems), as external researchers shouldn't have to turn to the talk page to figure out why/how Goku or Gohan are up to different tasks then the manga/anime showed.Scarletspiderfan (talk) 03:06, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

Our goal here is to say when the movie fits. The problem with pointing out unlikely things with the most plausible timeline place is that you need an alternative. For instance, saying it took place in year 1, not year 2, because (insert reason) is okay. In fact, for something that clear we would just discuss it in talk and then put the concluded timeline placement in the article with the reasons. Saying there is something unlikely about year 2, and thus the movie didn't take place at all is probably speculation, definitely opinion, and better suited for another section. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 22:17, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why there need be an alternative. For instance, check out the pages for Tree of Might and Cooler's Revenge. They, like the other movie pages, all mention these types of problems, but explain them where possible. That's what I'm saying, that the problems should be pointed out but explained how they're fixable, as that offers a complete explanation of how it fits in the certain spot, rather than simply trying to avoid the problems that readers coming to this site are seeking answers for. I'm not arguing this out of nowhere, this is how every other movie's continuity section is written (without mentioning a "year 2" type thing), and is where I'm formulating this position from. Part of the reason I've been so persistent is that its just not how the other movies' pages' continuity sections are written.Scarletspiderfan (talk) 21:56, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

You don't have enough evidence to prove the movie didn't take place - all you have are unlikely events. Even if you did, this would be the wrong section to make the claim. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 00:31, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read what I just said? I didn't say the section should say the movie didn't take place or is not in continuity, why are you responding as though that's the claim I made? I mean no offense, but the reason things got testy b/t you and Goatee is because you have a habit of completely brushing off/ignoring points or evidence people make (such as a few of the plotholes he mentioned) and responding as though a different claim is being made. For the billionth time, I'm not saying that the section should say the movie's not in continuity. Please re-read what I said about this page's continuity section not being consistent with the other movie's continuity sections, and explain to me why they take the time to explain the "unlikely" or improbable things while this movie's makes a concerted effort to completely avoid mentioning them.Scarletspiderfan (talk) 12:41, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

I read your section, and it's a borderline personal attack to lie and say that I didn't. Suggesting that I reread it would be a more appropriate way to say the same (albeit sarcastic) thing. In any case, I read it before and I didn't miss a thing. If you would please reread my previous few comments, you will find statements where I correctly point out that saying the movie cannot be placed in the timeline leads inevitably to the conclusion that the movie is not canon. To put it another way, the goal of the section is to take the whole of Dragon Ball Z as the starting time frame for the movie, and then use facts to narrow that time frame down further and further until we can point readers to the approximate period when it took place. What you are suggesting is not narrowing down to a small period to point at, but rather erasing the arrow altogether. Even though you only see the top level of what you're suggesting, if you follow the train of thought fully it leads to a canon debate, and belongs in trivia, not continuity. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 02:39, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Ah my mistake, I thought you were misinterpreting what i was saying, but in fairness, you keep neglecting to answer my question which is causing such a misunderstanding. I'm asking why the other movie's continuity sections have (for years) taken the time to explain the unlikely things as part of their effort to place the movie in continuity. Its the inconsistency b/t the pages that I am pointing out, please explain this to me, as my skepticism of your stance comes from it not being applied on other pages.Scarletspiderfan (talk) 15:27, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oh okay, since you were talking about this page I didn't know that you actually wanted me to talk about other pages on this one's talk page. The continuity section in general is ambiguous and undefined, and thus it is not consistent among movie pages. Some only mention timeline, and others mention independent inconsistencies. Presently, I am working with the community to change this and give a discrete definition that everyone can point to and say, "look, it says to do it like this, and I have." Inconsistencies should be mentioned, but they don't necessarily impact timeline any more or less than other aspects of the film, such as: events, characters' locations, knowledge that the characters may or may not remember later, etc. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 19:44, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see. I still respectfully disagree and feel that those inconsistencies seem like relevant info for a continuity section to cover, but, once again, thank you for explaining this to me and if it is something you are working on ironing out, then that makes sense. ThanksScarletspiderfan (talk) 23:14, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. Hopefully I will get some feedback soon on the proposed change. So far, no replies. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 00:34, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Timeline placement[]

Idk if it's been mentioned above, but whoever wrote the timeline placement failed to consider that the dead Vegeta and Goku never met up in the other world. Goku didn't see dead Vegeta until the latter was transported to Earth by Baba. ~Hyper Zergling 23:15, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

So where would you suggest it fits better? Merely noting a contradiction doesn't help much : / --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 02:13, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that it doesn't fit, period. No matter how you try to fit this movie into the Dragon Ball timeline, there is always something that contradicts. ~Hyper Zergling 15:37, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Consider this. Dragon Ball Z contains episodes with chronological contradictions to other episodes. Most people are aware of this, but I can give you a link to an article where we list such events (there are something like 50) if needed. However, the episodes are still numbered, and clearly fit in a certain place because of when they were aired. Well, our timeline placement section aims to number them, so to speak. The movie have contradictions, but we can still say that Lord Slug takes place closer to the Frieza saga than to the Buu saga. Our goal is to inform the readers, in this case also helping them watch the movies at the intended spots in the series. Just saying "this movie has a contradiction so we won't help you figure out when to watch it" doesn't help anyone : / -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 00:25, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

~~Can you please reexplain yourself? I can't seem to make sense of what you're trying to say.~~ Can you give me a non-filler example as to when Dragon Ball Z anime episodes contradict each other? Also, the Lord Slug movie can't fit into the Dragon Ball timeline. It most definitely can't fit where it's mentioned on this page, because the movie assumes that Goku has yet to learn super saiyan, not to mention Vegeta is not present. ~Hyper Zergling 01:11, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

I have to go ahead and ask why you specify non-filler? I get the feelings that you believe the manga is more official than filler, and that filler can have contradictions because you don't count it. That's a fine opinion to have, and we also count the manga as more important than filler. However, filler is placed in the timeline despite inconsistencies, so it follows that movies can be placed (despite inconsistencies) as well. As I have already pointed out, episodes are numbered, including filler, and that's all we are trying to do. By putting a timeline placement section, we are certainly not claiming that the movies are more important than manga or anything else.

Why have you chosen the timeline placement alone as the victim of inconsistencies? It seems just as plausible to say that Goku's forms were inconsistent, or that Vegeta's location was inconsistent. Some people have commented that giving it a timeline placement makes it feel more like it "counts", but rest assured that our intention is not to assert anything other than which episodes the movie best fits between. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 02:01, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

If there's a significant contradiction, it can't be part of the timeline. It would make no logical sense whatsoever. Why must you insist that everything counts and can't accept that something could have just not happened? ~Hyper Zergling 02:36, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

We are not insisting that it counts. We are giving it a chronological order, just like any episode, including filler and other media with contradictions. To quote my last post, "Some people have commented that giving it a timeline placement makes it feel more like it "counts", but rest assured that our intention is not to assert anything other than which episodes the movie best fits between." Not sure how else to say it. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 23:42, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

To be in the timeline, it had to have happened. If there is a contradiction, it could not have happened. If there are significant contradictions in a way that the movie/filler episode could not have happened, why would you attempt to put it in the timeline? ~Hyper Zergling 00:05, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

None of this happened, it's fictional. If you mean it didn't happen in the manga, you're right, which is why we never said it's in a manga timeline. It's the timeline of all DB events, manga, anime, movies, etc. This is a site for all DB info, not just the manga stuff. By your reasoning (if there is a contradiction, then it didn't happen, so leave it out of the article), then we might as well erase the intro, plot, and all the other info because it "didn't happen" either. Your version of the site would not be a very informative one. Sorry, but this is an encyclopedic site and we will not erase info just because you don't like non-manga material. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 02:23, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

I have an idea that this is Fusion Saga. Hence Gotenks has learnt the Super Ghost Kamikaze Attack now and Gohan looks Mystic. This has to be early Fusion Saga after that battle with Super Buu base by Gotenks and Gohan. Hence he's back on Earth. Only one thing stops this is that Videl is on Earth and not dead. So I don't know where it takes place. I say Fusion Saga. —This unsigned comment was made by Teengohanrocks (talk • contribs) Please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time!

I don't intend to remove the page altogether. I am saying it can't be placed in the timeline. Just because it isn't a part of the actual timeline doesn't mean it can't warrant a page. ~Hyper Zergling 01:05, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

I understand what 10x is saying, but Hyper Zergling is making a different point. This movie cannot be placed in the timeline because it contains significant plot elements which contradict both the anime and manga. Hyper Zergling is not suggesting that the page be either removed or taken out of the timeline, but that the timeline placement is factually incorrect, trying to force itself to work. When something doesn't fit in the universe, that doesn't mean we aren't saying there should be no record of it, just that it goes back to the old, and more accurate version that it is hard to place in the timeline, but could have taken place in an alternative universe. As it stands, the page is simply factually incorrect. -KidVegeta (talk)

The same argument could be made for the plot then. If the timeline placement is incorrect because the events contradict the manga (which Hyper Zergling continues to incorrectly assumes is the only true source of info we use here), then the plot is also false because it is just as contradictory. Hyper Zergling, what do you mean by "actual timeline"? If you mean "manga timeline", then that's true, but this is not the "manga DB Wiki", it is the DB Wiki. It is for all info. Assuming the manga is correct and everything else is wrong is strongly biased, and all edits must of course be made without bias. --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 05:57, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

We are arguing about the heading on this page under timeline placement. The information there is factually inaccurate, and should be removed. What Hyper Zergling pointed out is one of numerous contradictions that means the film cannot take place at the time that the section is stating. It would remove a lot of confusion if there was no (inaccurate and biased) speculation there to guess when this film took place in the anime timeline, as there is no place to accurately put it. A simple sentence saying that it cannot - or is difficult - to place amongst the episodes would clear up the article. -KidVegeta (talk)

Contradictions apply equally to the timeline and the plot. No one has said otherwise, so it follows that we should delete the article. This is obviously biased against movies, so it doesn't make sense to do. Stop thinking of the timeline as the "manga timeline" or an indication of canon/non-canon, and read the Manual of Style before editing on this site. --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 07:09, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring what I am saying, though I do not know if it is intentional that you are continuously talking about things which I am not even discussing. I will say this as clearly as possible so you can understand: On this page, there is a section called "Timeline placement". It erroneously says this takes place after Super Buu, but before Kid Buu, though the entire plot of the movie deems this to be a false assertation. What I am asking is that either that section be deleted, as it is wild speculation, which, by coincidence, is not allowed by the Manual of Style, or that the section be reworded in a way that does not imply that it takes place post Super Buu. If you want to have the least amount of speculation, the removal of that section would be ideal. As it stands, the section has (inaccurate) speculation on it, which should not stay. -KidVegeta (talk)

FRTimelinePlacement — Mini-timeline on the right placing *Fusion Reborn* between Goku's Super Saiyan 3 transformation and the Super Buu battle

Your main argument to say Fusion Reborn doesn't fit in the timeline is that Goku and Vegeta didn't meet in the Other World. It's not because the manga/anime don't mention they met there that they didn't. There is a period where they were dead at the same time. It's before Super Buu appears, and Daizenshuu 6 also states the movie takes place after Goku reveals his SSJ3 form and before the climax of the battles with Buu. Also read the page again, it doesn't say the film takes place after Super Buu and before Kid Buu, but after the fat Buu and before Super Buu; around Episode 253.

JeangabinTalkContrib

07:29, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can see how the arguments can get circular, because you probably view the Daizenshuu as an official source. If that is the case, then arguing correctly that this movie clearly never occurred in the main timeline, and likely occurred in an alternate timeline, will fall on deaf ears. Regardless, it's not like most fans come to these pages for factual verifications, so it isn't worth it to pursue this argument. I'll stick to more accurate sites. -KidVegeta (talk)

Daizenshuu books are official products and part of the franchise. They reveal additional information, facts and tidbits about the character creations, background, as well as manga drafts, early concept arts, etc. They have more weight than fan opinions. The sites that give more weight to their own opinion rather than facts revealed in official products aren't accurate. Why claiming "we don't know where to place this movie, it probably takes place in an alternate universe" while Daizenshuu 6 clearly places that movie in the main timeline between two manga events (Goku showing SSJ3 and battles with Buu). Or, for your "after Super Buu but before Kid Buu" part, maybe you're confusing real world timeline placement "It was originally released in Japan on March 4, 1995, between episodes 258 and 259." with the in-universe timeline placement ("Timeline placement" section).

JeangabinTalkContrib

07:42, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

When people start making personal attacks and stop talking about the issue at hand, I take it to mean they have nothing relevant left to say. KidVegeta, this is the group you are falling into at the moment. You hypocritically ignore the fact that filler can have an episode number to place it in the timeline, but a movie cannot, and you have given no defense for this point that completely defeats your arguments. Also, your comment about the Daizenshuu tells me that not only have not read the Manual of Style, but you have have also not read many articles here. It makes a little more sense to me now that you do not understand what we are telling you, since you are not familiar with how our thousands of users have agreed to set up the information here in order to make the site the best it can be. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 19:02, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

And you, are hypocritically accusing us of making personal attacks. You are disregarding what we are trying to argue, and mistaking our intentions; whether this is intentional or not, I will not guess. I am not sure what component of your argument(s) defeats KidVegeta's, so I would like you to specify. And to clarify this "bias-against-movies" you are accusing us of, we do not believe no movies can fit in the timeline, but rather, several cannot. Fusion Reborn is one of those movies that cannot fit in the timeline, whereas Revenge of Cooler can. KidVegeta even said that it's not necessarily impossible for this movie to fit in the timeline, but at the very least, it's very difficult. So instead of flat out stating exactly when this movie took place, which is fanon speculation, you can at least say that it is difficult to fit in the timeline. ~Hyper Zergling 01:08, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

I do not think you know what "hypocritical means". What you said would mean that I am personally attacking you, which I am not. I am presenting a view contrary to your own, which is different then suggesting that I intentionally ignored you or that I can only understand the simplest of discussions, as Kidvegeta did. You just did the same thing and suggested that I am intentionally ignoring you. Personal attacks are disruptive to intelligent arguments and reflect poorly upon you as a person. Simply discuss the issue at hand, and don't make comments about other users' personality or intellect. You two are completely ignoring my points, so hit on those first since they make yours irrelevant. Namely, filler episodes with contradictions have an episode number and therefore a timeline placement, so movies with contradictions can have a timeline placement as well. Contradictions alone are absolutely not a reason to ignore chronological order of events. As for your arguments, I have say why they are wrong and will now do so again - saying that we should ignore the Daizenshuu or that things not in the manga don't belong on a timeline is against the will of the community as stated in the Manual of Style.

As for your new discussion of saying that it is difficult to place chronologically, that is 100% different from saying that we should blank a whole section in the article out of non-manga bias. I am all for mentioning a few different places that it might belong, but totally against saying that filler and movies are somehow fan work. You know that fanon means made by fans, right? Because the movies are published, license material that is just as real as any other media. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 02:30, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

If you are not ignoring our point, then I do not know what it is. Maybe you have a different definition of ignorance. By mistaking our points in the first place, you have initiated the irrelevance. I won't say that I don't think you know what hypocritical means, but you are being the very hypocrite you are accusing us of.

I don't know about KidVegeta, but the reason why I may seem to be ignoring your points is because I saw no logic behind them until Jeangabin brought up Daizenshuu. If this timelime placement section is straight from Daizenshuu, fair enough. Otherwise, mention a multiple different places it might belong in the timeline as you've mentioned. ~Hyper Zergling 12:46, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Your last comment did not make sense. How I respond to your point does not affect whether or not you know what it is. Your original argument was that it contradicts the manga and cannot be in a timeline. My response was that filler contradicts manga but has timeline placement. My point makes yours irrelevant through logic, not through any mistakes on your part or mine. You two have yet to respond to the filler precedent, so I will just assume you have no counter-argument, and that you have given up of having the timeline section removed. "Hypocrite" in this case means someone who tells you not to do anything but does it anyway. I am not personally attacking you, whereas Kidvegeta resorted to personal attacks.

If you see no logic between the filler argument I made, then I will restate it and try to be more clear. It is a counterpart to your first request that the timeline section be removed on the grounds that there are contradictions to other media such as manga and anime. You claimed that filler can have contradictions and still fit in the timeline but movies cannot. Both are non-manga anime segments, both have contradictions, and both can get our best estimate of where they fit. When I ask why movies don't fit and filler does, you have still only ever said that movies have contradictions. Okay, but filler does too, and filler gets timeline placement without a complaint.

Now, the second point that you have discussed is that it is difficult to place it somewhere because of the events. Maybe we mention two different places that it fits best, or maybe we just say it's difficult to place. That's a good point, it works with the Manual of Style, and this conversation would have gone better if that was your point to begin with. I am not saying that you were wrong to ask about removing the section, just that I think a lot of our confusion stemmed from a suggestion against our core policies. Jean brought up that the Daizenshuu, which can be used as a source as per the Manual of Style, places it explicitly. This counters your second request, since the Daizenshuu overrides anything that you or I can try and reason in terms of placement. With that, we should be done here. If you want to make new points that bring up sources that are better than Daizenshuu, feel free to do it here. If you are confused at all, or want to chat about the Manual of style, or criticize me (not that you have), then I will migrate those types of messages to my talk page. Thank you. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 19:01, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

I think what Zergling and KV are trying to say is that the section seems a bit biased in how it tackles the issue of this trying to fit into continuity. There is evidence that it doesn't take place in where the section states. Some of the more noteworthy ones:

1) Goku being in an other world tournament at point where he was on the Sacred Planet of the Kais. Did he just take a break to have some fun?

2) Gohan being on Earth as Great Saiyaman when he would've been undergoing his ritual to get his Ultimate powers. As the trivia section notes already, none of the character interactions, at a time when they thought he was dead, seem to support this happening simultaneous with this film.

3) Dende said that the z-Fighters were going to have to wait a few months to use the DragonBalls again... but they use them here? Then they also still have another wish at the end of the Kid Buu saga to undo his actions? How?

4) Vegeta not knowing what Fusion was before Goku convinced him to fuse w him into Vegito. Seems impossible that they could've fused previously into Gogeta, based on their interaction in that episode.

I'm not saying the section should say the movie can't fit, but evidence from the manga and anime (both the Manuel style stating these are superior sources to Daizenshuu) seems to suggest that it doesn't fit. Maybe it should at least be mentioned that its difficult to fit. I know the sections used to read like this, not sure why they were changed. It just seems to invoke too much fan conjecture, and if we are going to write a section using conjecture, I don't see how we can not explore other evidence, for the sake of people looking at a wiki for facts and in the interest of being unbiased. The Manuel of Style doesn't say we must fit them into the timeline at all costs, but it does say we should try to be neutral in cases like this. Just my two cents.Why do we fall? To pick ourselves up, Mets 2014! (talk) 19:50, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Contradictions affect all events in the movie. If it contradicts, then the characters section is wrong, the plot, the timeline, and everything else. Since it effects everything, that info belongs in trivia. What's more, filler from the anime that "doesn't fit" is still in the timeline, that that section is least likely to be affected. --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 19:54, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

No movies can really fit (Only Garlic Jr and Hirudegarn movie, but even they have inconsistencies). Only if it's an alternate timeline. Like, what if Goku killed Buu with his Super Saiyan 3 power? (he said he could kill Fat Buu at full power SS3) It would explain it all Sandubadear 20:02, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

They fit fine, they just have inconsistencies like filler. Filler obviously fits because it has an episode number, so we can say with 100% certainty that inconsistencies are not an episode number/timeline issue. One is bound by out-of-universe constraints like release date, and the other is bound by in-universe events like where Goku is at the time. We have to be careful not to confuse chronological placement with plot consistency. They are both important, but we need to keep them independent to remain neutral. --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 20:30, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. It's like: the Turles movie takes place before or after Freeza saga; this is the timeline placement, but the movie has inconsistencies that Goku doesn't turn Super Saiyan (because it was released way before the Freeza saga), but all the other Z-Fighters are alive. It's a "what-if" Goku arrived early to Earth and Nappa didn't kill the Z-Fighters. Sandubadear 20:36, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Sort of, but I wouldn't say what-if. Whereas what-ifs are officially only theoretical, movies are every bit as official as the anime. There difference in my eyes is that the creative team intended the what-ifs to be separate, whereas the movies were intended to be included. Usually, they just didn't know the plot far enough in advance to mesh it all together later (like with "false" Super Saiyan). In any case, that doesn't weigh in on which episodes the movie takes place near, it just adds contradictions in after the fact. --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 21:25, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean by filler having inconsistencies similar to the movies. Can you give some examples? I'm just not really sure what you're referring to, because I can't think of any similar massive breaks between storyline and movie like the ones in several of the films. I'm also not sure how you can say the creative team definitly intended this to be included in the storyline, since we don't have interviews with them saying they wanted to do this. I think the point I'm making is that, while you say chronological placement and plot consistency are separate issues, I don't understand how you can declare this to be the case. Particularly if there are a lot of members of the community who disagree with you and want the timeline placement section to include evidence that it doesn't occur where it says. Seems we should be concerned with analyzing all evidence, rather than shying away and catering to only 1 viewpoint. That, or maybe there needs to be a better section title than "timeline placement" for these sections.Why do we fall? To pick ourselves up, Mets 2014! (talk) 16:27, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

So if I provide some examples of plotholes in filler you will see my point of view? As for members of the community, there are a lot on both sides (this discussion has happened many times in the past), and I do acknowledge that there are two points of view. The bottom line is that we are a site dedicated to providing information. Given the choice to either (A) give readers information about when the film takes place with regard to the rest of the series, or (B) not give any info and leave the readers clueless as to whether this is before the Saiyans arrive or after Buu is defeated, option A is obviously the best. We used to call the section "Continuity", and changed it to "Timeline Placement" to specify that we are not taking a position on the nonsense concept of canon that many fans use with an infinite variety of conflicting definitions. If you have a better suggestion for the section title, we are all ears. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 19:15, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's like, the movie takes place in the Buu Arc, since Gohan is an adult and stuff. Whether it fits or not in a place in the series, it's irrelevant.

Sandubadear

20:15, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand your point better, since off the top of my head I don't know of any plotholes in filler that are as noteable as the ones in some of the movies. I just want to make sure I fully understand your point is all, rather than debating a point I don't fully grasp. As for the actual issue, I agree wholeheartedly with you that we should be going with option A), which is to give readers information about when the film takes place in regards to the rest of the series. I'm just saying the way it is being done now, the way these sections are written is saying "Timeline: Movie X absolutely takes place in this spot for reasons A, B, and C!", while brushing aside evidence D, E, and F for it not occurring in that place, which is basically picking and choosing what evidence counts. I think the title "Timeline placement" does end up denoting a position on the concept of canon, declaring it absolutely is part of the series canon, as most internet fans seem to use the two phrases interchangeably. If the goal is to avoid this, then this becomes counterproductive and causes members, readers, etc to jump to provide counterevidence. Perhaps the section could be titled "Chronology Point"? Doesn't quite roll of the tongue well lol, but something along those lines at least avoids denoting a definte claim on canon, which you've said we don't want . Perhaps also a separate section for contradictions (maybe a subsection of trivia) might be a good idea, just to put an end to the endless, often bitter confrontations that seem to occur over this. I agree with you that fans have differing, conflicting definintions of continuity, canon, etc, so doing this would strengthen the readers' ability to consider different evidence and make up their own minds, based on whatever defintions they have.Why do we fall? To pick ourselves up, Mets 2014! (talk) 23:37, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Good points all around. Again, I would avoid saying canon at all since you might think that just means manga, the next guy will say anything approved by Toriyama, a third guy will say that it's anything with no contradictions, the next two people will fight about filler counting or not, two more will argue about GT, etc. It's all a dead end and there are no consistently accepted definitions regarding Dragon Ball and canon, trust me.

So we have a whole page for plot holes, but here are some big ones in manga and otherwise. In Dragon Ball, Goku sends monster carrot to the moon, which should asphyxiate him, but instead he's just fine, and later in Z Goku being able to breathe or not after Namek explodes is a major plot point. The second time Goku starts looking for the Dragon Balls (Red Ribbon Saga), it's only been 8 months since their last use (a very timeline-related example of a plot hole... should we say these manga chapters are non-canon? Of course not). When Raditz arrives, he says Planet Vegeta blew up 3 years ago - in reality, Frieza destroyed it 24 years earlier (around the time Goku was born), and Raditz should know this. In the Pendulum room, the Z Fighters fight Saiyans 100 years ago on Planet Vegeta. However, the first Saiyans had only arrives there 40 years ago. When Goku visits Princess Snake, he has a dream about Vegeta and Nappa, who he has never seen. Goku's space pod landed in the woods when Grandpa Gohan found Goku, but later in Z it is in the desert. Kaio-ken is supposed to double a users power, yet Goku uses "Kaio-ken x2" to get even stronger; Daizenshuu specifically states that the multiplier equals the power increase, so Kaio-ken and Kaio-ken x2 should be the same thing. I'm going to stop here at the end of the Saiyan saga, but take my word when I say there are tons more as the series goes on. Based on this, you should start seeing a pattern that the writers slip up sometimes, in big ways, and it should not detract from our effort in describing the events that happened here on an info site.

So you're on the right track, although I foresee "Chronology Point" as an excuse for people to say, "well why are you claiming it falls in the chronology when in fact there's an inconsistency with something else - it simply doesn't fit in the chronology at all so don't tell me when it takes place, it doesn't take place." What's worse is some users see some sort of fundamental difference between episodes and movies such that they will apply plot holes completely differently, eg using it to say a movie doesn't count. At this point, I think trivia is good enough, as contradictions (plotholes that is, and not animation errors) have their own page. Since each movie/episode only has a few, if any, a whole section would be overkill and hard to maintain. Trivia can go on every page, and thus we can be more consistently formatted throughout our pages. We want to avoid stating yes or no for whether it "counts" or not, but it seems like when we leave it out fans just jump to some other section to make the same debates. For instance, if we had a "Canon" section, fans would argue about it there, but since we don't those same people complain about the timeline section - with some people going as far as to delete it. If we took it out, people would probably try and make notes in the intro section stating, "this movie does not fit due to plot holes, and it is unofficial in my opinion." --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 00:08, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean about plot inconsistencies being recurring. I will say, however, that because the movies are a different beast entirely, without episode numbers, I think it seems to come down entirely to personal opinion whether or not they should be extended the same treatment as episodes when it comes to forgiving . Especially since some (like Fusion Reborn) seem to have so numerous (and glaring) inconsistencies, that character actions can seem completely nonsensical within the context of the main series (like Goku leaving to fight in the tournament), and we really have no way of knowing whether or not the creators intended for them to have the same treatment. However, I'll admit that debating this would be irrelevant to the discussion, since you've explained to me the actual purpose of the section is not to even make a claim on this point, so thanks for explaining this to me. As for the inconsistencies, maybe a subsection of trivia would at least be useful, purely because it makes organizational sense to group similar points together. Since (I think) you seem to agree with me that it might be a good idea to change the timeline placement title to something that will cause less confusion among readers and editors as to its purpose, I'll rattle some off: Chronology Context? Timeline Context? Chronology Background? Something that seems like continuity-sounding. If these don't work, I suppose I can take time to think and come back to you.Why do we fall? To pick ourselves up, Mets 2014! (talk) 21:53, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. All users should be able to decide for themselves what they want to "count". We just want to summarize the film. Saying whether you should expect Goku to be 8 years old or 30 years old is pretty important. Canon status is up to opinions and it's almost never agreed upon, so we don't touch it. We try not to suggest it either, but that's a difficult problem. Good suggestions, anybody else have more? --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 23:06, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Section Order[]

Side-note regarding formatting, but the order of sections is different on several of the movie pages. It seems they should be in the same order on each page, I'm not sure which is the right one so I'll just bring it to your attention.Why do we fall? To pick ourselves up, Mets 2014! (talk) 22:08, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Trivia[]

Okay, so I thought you said that a plot inconsistency belongs in trivia? I made a very minor adjustment to the point about Gohan's interactions with the other characters seeming odd, merely noting that he would have been on the Sacred Planet of the Kais. I pretty much just inserted the words "while he is on the Sacred Planet of the Kais" in the middle of the sentence and even tagged it as a minor edit. I made this point as a continuity error when we talked earlier, and you responded saying that it belongs in trivia, since it affects the whole article. So I went off of our discussion and added it, but user Jeangabean keeps removing it. I also added trivia noting that the concept of villains escaping Hell was later used in GT. But he undid this too. I don't see why the second edit is vandalism, as it seems very relevant to note the plot similarity between this movie and the Super 17 saga, perfectly what one would call "trivia". I would also note what that other user said earlier, which is that we place this movie before Super Buu, but Gotenks shouldn't know super ghost kamikaze, but I don't want to put this in just to be undone again. Its not that big a deal, but in his last undo, he also called me useless, which I feel is rather abrasive and unnecessary to say to someone.Why do we fall? To pick ourselves up, Mets 2014! (talk) 19:36, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

I think this is probably addressed to me, so I'll respond first. I agree that plot issues belong in trivia, but I have not discussed that particular note that you added. It seems like you should be asking Jean here, not me, since he is the one who disagrees with you. Your edits are not vandalism, and no one has suggested such. However, noting two similar events in an anime with so many episodes and movies does seem a little boring, since there are many events that are similar to each other. Why wouldn't Gotenks know his own move yet? And why is noting Gohan's location important? I think the fact that they think he is dead is probably the only noteworthy thing there. It looks like Jean said that Gohan's location is useless info there, which is may be, he didn't really insult you I don't think. Let's see what he says. --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 20:46, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Adding those details renders the trivia less clear: "the Z Fighters still on Earth believe Gohan to be dead in the series while he is on the Sacred Planet of the Kais, while in the movie they interact with him as if this is not the case" can be inderstand as "while he is on the Sacred Planet of the Kais, in the movie they interact with Gohan as if the Z Fighters still on Earth did believe Gohan to be dead". Before your edit, this trivia was clear and, without details not needed for it to be a trivia, it couldn't confuse anyone.

As for the Hell thing, it's shown several time in the series that people could go from the Other World to the living world without having to be resurrected (Grandpa Gohan, Goku in Bojack Unbound, villains in Fusion Reborn and GT, King Kai, Bubbles, Gregory, and Old Kai in Yo! Soku Goku and his friends return!!). It's just something very current in the Dragon Ball World. Escaping the realm of the dead is something that exist in the DB universe, and it was established way before Fusion Reborn (since Dragon Ball and the Fortuneteller Baba Saga).

JeangabinTalkContrib

00:35, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Well, him being on the Sacred Planet during this time is also a plot inconsistency. I added that previously as a separate trivia point, but it was also undone so I thought this was better. I base that off of the fact that the trivia section also just notes Goku is in a different place, and similar trivia is on every movie's page. As for Hell, while your right that people go back and forth, this is a little different. The exact plot of villains escaping en masse to attack the Earth, and our heroes confronting them, appears a second time in GT. I just don't know why you don't consider that of informative value to readers of this page. Seems very relevant, and is similar to a point on the Plan to Eradicate the Super Saiyans page about Myuu and Raichi.Why do we fall? To pick ourselves up, Mets 2014! (talk) 00:44, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

As for the Hell issue, I lean more toward Jean's way of thinking. This happens many times, and it's not interesting to just point out that a few both happen. The article states that it happened in detail already, and the other incidents are mentioned on their respective pages as well. Where people are, especially Goku, is not that important since they can just travel, or in Goku's case instantly teleport back and forth. Be careful when citing other articles as a reason to do something on this one. Formatting usually works that way, but content often does not. For instance, maybe the other times something is stated are incorrect, and were based off of each other in the first place. It is best to simply discuss the issue at hand as an independent decision. More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 01:22, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, your point about not citing other pages is noted. Independently, I'm going to list the points just since its easier to read that way:

1) With Gohan though, its not just that he's in a different place, its that he's also fighting crime as the Great Saiyaman which seems very very odd if he is also trying to deal with Buu. The trivia point currently reads this "Since episode 241 (which is set approximately one day after the tournament), the Z Fighters still on Earth believe Gohan to be dead in the series, while in the movie they interact with him as if this is not the case. The movie occurs 9 days after the tournament, as shown on Videl's watch" I think it more informative to say "Gohan is seen on Earth as the Great Saiyaman, despite the film being set before his return. It is possible that he could have briefly returned offscreen, however, since episode 241 (which is set approximately one day after the tournament), the Z Fighters still on Earth believe him to be dead, while in the movie they interact with him as if this is not the case. The movie occurs 9 days after the tournament, as shown on Videl's watch." I understand what you mean about characters travelling, but I don't see it appropriate to take it for granted that all readers coming here for info will understand this. Especially since Gohan doesn't know Instant Transmission.

2) The thing about the Hell thing is that it is the exact same plot happening a second time down the road in GT. The point I made wasn't that it was possible to escape Hell, it was that all the series villains attacking the Earth after escaping only happens twice - this time and the Super 17 saga. What I mean is it is informative for readers. For example, lets say you have someone who is new to DBZ, saw this movie and liked it, and decided to check out this page. Would it not be useful for them to learn that the same plot occurred in the main series down the road?

3) As for Gotenks (I forgot to mention that before), if the film is before Super Buu, then its also before Goten/Trunks went into the Hyperbolic Time Chamber, which is where they learned the technique. If they had it before, it would have been invented while training with Piccolo, but he expresses surprise at the technique during the fight with Super Buu, so this can't be the case.Why do we fall? To pick ourselves up, Mets 2014! (talk) 15:17, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

That first rewording is no good, since it leaves out the fact that Gohan is thought dead; where is he returning from? You also use the phrase "it is possible" which means you are speculating about the thing immediately before and after you use the phrase. If either of two things could have happened, but we don't know for sure either way, then we don't state those things. There are many plot point that only happen twice, or once, or three times, but that is not good trivia. It's a rather arbitrary selection criteria to say that it is interesting whenever something happens more than once. Frieza was defeated twice. Goku and Vegeta have two different fusions. Three Saiyan attack parties are sent to Earth. These things are just statements of events, not unique trivia. Good trivia is something like, "Although Krillin is seen with Android 18 and Marron during the title sequence, he is not seen at all during the actual movie." Really, they teased that a main character and a Z Fighter would be involved by putting him in the opening then left him out of the film? That's quite interesting. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 18:30, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see what you mean, though the villains attacking Earth from a mass breach in Hell seems much more unique and not as obvious as your other examples, being that an entire story arc was essentially just lifted from this film. As for the rewording of the trivia, okay, but is the fact that he is serving as Great Saiyaman instead of preparing for Buu not an inconsistency? Its not that we could just think he is taking a break to help out against the villains from Hell, he was shown to be Great Saiyaman before and after the battle with Frieza. So would that be a separate point entirely? I assume also you don't see a problem with the Gotenks thing, since you didn't mention that just now? And also, Vegeta and Goku noted fusing permanently as an issue when they were going to fuse with the Potara in the fusion saga, but another inconsistency would then be there'd be no reason for them to do this if they knew the Fusion dance already b/c of this film's events. Would that appropriate trivia?Why do we fall? To pick ourselves up, Mets 2014! (talk) 19:21, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot going on here, we seem to introduce something need with each response. Can you form some separate sections to help organize this? How is the Hell escaping issue more unique than Frieza being defeated? They both happen twice, I'd say that major plot points like that are extremely obvious, and more importantly already noted in the article. We simply cannot repeat ourselves in the trivia section. The articles are a short summary of events surrounding a specific topic, and it cannot be included again. I'm not sure where we stand on the Gohan issue, as it seems like it is already included and I cannot tell if you are elaborating on old things, or want to add entirely new things, or what. Potara is different from Fusion Dance and they are not interchangeable. I no not follow you,r reasoning about knowing of one and therefore never needing the other. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 20:32, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

With Hell, l I just found it noteworthy that the entire plot of this film was recycled into a whole saga down the road. The other ones are just plot/continuity inconsistencies I'm trying to note in trivia. For Gohan, I'm just noting its an inconsistency for him to be in the city fighting crime as the Great Saiyaman instead of preparing for Buu in some form. I was just asking if you felt it was more appropriate for it to be combined with the point on the others treating him as though he's not dead, if you see it as a separate bullet, or not at all needing to go in. With the fusion dance, I'm saying it would be an inconsistency for Goku and Vegeta to have done the fusion dance here, yet express reservations about doing a permanent fusion later on in the Fusion saga and Kid Buu saga. They wouldn't need to use this logic if they could just do the temporary fusion to become Gogeta.Why do we fall? To pick ourselves up, Mets 2014! (talk) 23:07, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Let's rule out the hell issue, since it does not meet the criteria to be listed as trivia. Gohan can prepare for Buu however he likes, and fighting crime seems like a reasonable decision on his part. At worst, it's a bad decision. I don't see how that could be an inconsistency. As I said with Fusion Dance and Potara, they are different techniques with their own strengths and weaknesses; they are not interchangeable. I can either give you links to the pages or explain how they are different here if you like. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 00:22, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I'll just drop it. Tbh I'm terribly confused now about the treatment of inconsistencies, as it seems somewhat inconsistent on this site how their applied. Characters acting in ways that are nonsensical in the context of where its being placed come across as a giant plot inconsistency...just doesn't make sense for characters to act that way. After all the times we've seen the heroes train their butts off for villains (from Saiyans to Androids to Cell to Buu), after what a big deal was made out of the Z-sword training, for anyone of Gohan or Supreme Kai to say "forget the Z-sword ! I'll deal with normal Earth criminals! That's better!" being proper proper preparation for Buu...seems factually wrong. It just requires everyone to be very out of character from how they've been established up to that point, which would be an inconsistency. I don't think I'll be convinced otherwise, so I'll save both of our times by just dropping it, thanks for trying to explain it to me though. Was there any extra consideration given to our previous discussion about changing the title of "timeline placement" to something less implying of continuity?Why do we fall? To pick ourselves up, Mets 2014! (talk) 12:53, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

It really doesn't have anything to do with all of the characters. We already state on the article that the other characters should be surprised, so that shouldn't be part of this discussion. This is really just about Gohan's training habits, and it's more characteristic for him to act like Saiyaman as an adult than to spend time training - quite the opposite on an inconsistency really. He hasn't done major training since his teenage years before Cell's tournament. I am still open to new name ideas. Keep in mind though that even if we removed the section entirely, I guarantee people will start putting in comments about canon in the intro paragraph or plot summary sections. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 22:21, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

If Buu wasn't around , it would make sense for him to be Saiyaman instead of training. But its not characteristic for him to prepare for Buu (which he would have to be if the film's set where the section says) by abandoning the Supreme Kai and his Z-sword training to be Saiyaman. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever based on the events of the Majin Buu saga. As for the timeline placement section, I never suggested removing the section, just naming it something different that less implies continuity to clear up confusion among contributors. It just confuses editors as to its purpose, which is why this and several of the other movie talk page are littered with lengthy debates about the issue. Timeline "Context" would be much better than Timeline "Placement", as context just implies a backdrop or vague order for the events to have occurred. If the title isn't changed, the bruising debates on the talk pages will probably continue over and over again indefinitly.

To be blunt, it just isn't any fun coming to a wiki that is micromanaged so much that every edit needs approval from two users or where I have someone lurking over my shoulder. Appreciate your patience, but I don't think this is site is right for me so I think I'll just retire and check out some other DB fan sites. Why do we fall? To pick ourselves up, Mets 2014! (talk) 16:46, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

The training issue may be strange, but to call it a plot inconsistency it would need to be impossible. As in not physically able to happen, as opposed to just some bad decision making by a character. I gave the example of a case where we have no timeline section and people would complain anyway to point out that a title change to the section is not going to solve the problem. The section has already been named several things, and we are always open to new suggestions. The aim should be to make the section title fitting though, rather than just trying to avoid a debate that will happen no matter what. We have had these conversations on the site even before that section existed. There are sites about anime shows so devoted to manga-only mindsets that they don't even allow non-manga content in articles, or hide it with special templates. It's not a bad thing if that's what kind of site it is supposed to be, but we are here to state all the facts, avoid bias and opinions, be encyclopedic, etc.

I am sorry to hear that you do not like our style. I agree that most edits are reviewed by veteran editors, which can seem tedious before you are more familiar with the Manual of Style and other article conventions here. However, most fan sites are only editable by the single person who owns the domain, so monitored input is still going to give you more freedom than not being able to edit at all. We also have an unrivaled sheer quantity of info, which would not be possible without all the contributors we have enjoyed over the years. In the end, we do try our best, and I believe everyone, including you and I, all have the same goal of making the site informative and effective. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 00:55, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Shenron's wishes[]

I added a mention about Shenron offering to grant three wishes in this film instead of the two he should be able to grant during the timeline placement if it is to take place around episode "I Kill No More." At this point in the series, Shenron either can't grant more than two wishes, or it has not yet been revealed that he can do so. Just before this timeline placement, when Bulma summons Shenron to bring back those killed by Vegeta, he only offers two wishes. Yet user Sandubadear pulled my edit, stating that Shenron can grant three wishes at this point, but only two if any of the wishes involve bringing people back to life. I don't remember this being the case, and if it is, why did Shenron only offer two wishes before even knowing Bulma's wish to bring back those killed by Vegeta in the series? EBsessed (talk) 18:14, March 3, 2015 (UTC)

This may be dub-only, because I am sure Dende upgrades Shenron to three wishes when he comes to Earth in the Cell saga. But then he explains that wishes of mass revival use up a lot of energy, so only one other wish will be left. They only wish twice in the Cell saga because one of the wishes include the mass revival of Cell's victims. And the same when Vegeta killed people. The dubs probably mistook and made Shenron say that he can only grant two wishes, when it's actually three.

Sandubadear

18:22, March 3, 2015 (UTC)

Then explain this bit in the Trivia section: "In the English dub by FUNimation, Shenron offers to grant three wishes rather than the regular two, however in the Japanese dub, he says two (one wish was previously used by Bulma to resurrect all the good people killed by Majin Vegeta the day of the 25th World Martial Arts Tournament)." I've noticed that you tend to remove a lot of my edits, many of which end up being justified after being put through discussion, and at least one other time you have removed an edit of mine by simply having your facts wrong. You seem very restrictive, and I feel that you're too quick to remove things. I don't add information without having researched it first, so perhaps you may want to research those things yourself before you decide to remove them. As far as my research has shown, and from re-watching the series in English myself lately, Dende's Shenron (at least at this point in the series - I can't remember if he later gains the ability to grant three wishes because I'm in the middle of the Gohan/Super Buu fight right now and haven't gotten to the Kid Buu saga yet and haven't seen it in a long time) can only grant two wishes without any other loopholes hidden in the fine print. Maybe this becomes the case later, but as of the point in time when the movie is said to take place on this page, Shenron can still only grant two wishes. EBsessed (talk) 19:53, March 4, 2015 (UTC)

Then we reached an impasse, because in the Dragon Ball (object) page we have this written:

"When Dende became the Earth's guardian, he modified the burnt out Dragon Balls created by Kami, giving Shenron the power to grant three wishes (two wishes if one wish is used to revive a large amount of people)."

The other alternative is that the Trivia is also wrong.

Sandubadear

20:11, March 4, 2015 (UTC)

And once again, I am telling you that at this point in the series, each time Shenron has been summoned, before even knowing what wishes everyone is going to make, he has only offered two wishes. So even if he is able to grant three wishes with the caveat of wishing people back, at this point in the series that detail has not yet been revealed. If you don't believe me, re-watch the episodes for yourself where Shenron is summoned. EBsessed (talk) 19:19, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

I believe you, but maybe this is only in the english dub, because originally Dende upgrades Shenron to three wishes since the Cell saga.

Sandubadear

19:33, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

I've figured out the problem. This is not an English dub error, it's an error on fans misinterpreting how Dende's dragon was created. Re-watch the episode "Dende's Dragon" and listen closely to the language, regardless whether you're watching it in English or Japanese. When Dende explains Shenron's abilities, he is not saying he can give Shenron the ability to grant three but only two if mass revivals are one of the wishes. He is saying he can either give Shenron similar abilities to Porunga (i.e. three wishes but can only revive one person at a time) or give Shenron the ability to revive many people at a time but limit him two wishes, period, permanently. Dende could either give him one ability or another: three wishes or multiple reivivals, not both. This is why, in all the various dubs, Shenron only offers two possible wishes when he is summoned, even before being told what the wishes will be. At no point in the series does Shenron have the ability to grant three wishes. He has only ever been capable of one by Kami's rules, and two by Dende's rules. Shenron's abilities do not change with the type of wish, his abilities are permanent and set in stone as soon as the Namekian gives him life. EBsessed (talk) 19:57, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that he can only grant two wishes ever again and then there won't be any more wishes ever? Or that there are only two types of things people can wish for now? Both seem unlikely. --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 20:13, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

What? Neither. What I said was that when Dende took over as Shenron's lifegiver, he offered to make him like Porunga and give him the ability to grant three wishes per summon and only be able to revive one person per wish. The protagonists asked if he could give Shenron the ability to revive multiple people per wish, like the old Shenron, and he said that he could, but it would limit Shenron to two wishes per summon. The whole reason they took time thinking about it was because they were trying to decide if it would be better to have more wishes and less revivals, or less wishes and more revivals. They decided on the latter, and so that's what Dende did. A dragon's wish-granting abilities can't be changed unless its lifegiver is changed (ala Kami to Dende), or a new dragon is created entirely (ala Porunga to the original Shenron). There is no caveat about "you get this many if you wish for this or this many if you wish for that." In every language's dub and in the manga, every time Shenron is summoned after Dende revives him and changes his abilities, he immediately offers two wishes and two wishes only, all before even knowing what any of the wishes will be. That proves that there is no three-wish option for Dende's Shenron. As a Namekian dragon master, you have the ability to make a dragon's wishes more plentiful and less powerful, or less plentiful and more powerful. Porunga has the former, and Shenron has the latter. At no point anywhere does Shenron ever offer three wishes except the English dub of Fusion Reborn, and that's because it was an error. The reason the other dubs had Shenron only offering two wishes was not because it was taking Bulma's wish into account. Like nearly every DBZ movie, Fusion Reborn ignores the continuity of the manga and anime altogether and does its own thing. He offers two wishes in the film because that's all he can offer. Even if you wanted to make the case that Bulma's wish took one away and that's why he's offering two, that wouldn't be accurate anyway since Bulma's wish did indeed revive multiple people, so if the film were taking that wish into account, Shenron would only offer one wish, not two. EBsessed (talk) 23:30, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

~~It sounds convincing enough, sorry EBsessed. You're right it's two wishes only even if they don't wish for revivals.~~ Though you're slightly wrong there, you can upgrade the dragon anytime, since Moori manages to upgrade after they go to New Namek, and he upgrades Porunga to do both mass revivals and three wishes. Sandubadear 23:40, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, fine, but can someone PLEASE at least explain why in "I Kill No More", Goku mentioned having two wishes left before Piccolo corrected him (and keep in mind, this was AFTER they used the wish to revive everyone killed by Majin Vegeta that day)? That would be one more wish, not two. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 02:03, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

When does Moori give Porunga the ability to grant three wishes and multiple revivals? Is it in the Kid Buu saga? Like I said, my memory of that part is fuzzy because I haven't gotten there yet as I'm currently re-watching the series. And if that is indeed the case, it could be that Moori is simply a stronger dragon master than Guru, Kami, and Dende were. Either that, or Guru and Kami had moral stipulations against giving a dragon three wishes and multiple revivals per wish, as Old Kai expresses disgust at the notion (according to Porunga's wiki page anyway). However, we do know that Dende states that he's unable to give Shenron both three wishes and multiple revivals per wish. Perhaps Porguna himself is simply a more powerful dragon than Shenron. All we know is what we've seen, and so far the only person we've seen change a dragon's abilities spontaneously was Moori (if what you're saying is correct - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt), and it's a mystery whether that can be attributed to Moori's abilities or to Porunga's. But Shenron's abilities have never been shown to be able to change without being given a new master. And Weedle, Goku's an idiot hero - he simply forgot. EBsessed (talk) 16:41, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

It's in the Kid Buu saga. The wishes are: rebuild the Earth, revive all good people who died that day, and restore Goku's energy. Old Kai doesn't like the Dragon Balls because they go against natural order (though apparently he doesn't mind being revived by them) and since those are the Namekian Dragon Balls, they should only be used to that planet, not in Earth's favour. I agree that Porunga may be stronger, since Porunga easily revived almost all the people on Earth without any trouble, while Shenron didn't know if he could revive 100 Namekians far away (he could, but still). Sandubadear 16:46, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

I asked around Kanzenshuu, and they said it's exactly as I was saying. Three wishes, but two if it's mass revival because it drains his energy. You said that Shenron gives two wishes in the manga? Wrong. Here are two scanlations:

Both said the same thing. Then he grants Bulma's wish on reviving the people killed by Vegeta, and in I Kill No More, Goku thinks he has two wishes left, but then Piccolo reminds him that mass revivals drain Shenron's power so he can only grant one more. I think it's over now?

Sandubadear

19:37, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I was mistaken about the manga. How about all the various dubs of the DBZ anime then? Perhaps they changed the dragon's rules in the anime, because I'm sure all the dubs have him offering two wishes upon each revival. And in the manga, how many wishes did he offer when they summoned him after the Cell Games? If it was three again then I'm certain the manga has different rules than the anime, because like I said, every time Shenron is summoned in the anime (except Fusion Reborn), he offers two wishes. I have to say, though, that if what you're saying is right then I'm very confused as to why they made such a fuss over which rules they should have Dende apply to the revived Shenron. If it didn't matter anyway and they weren't debating over which rules to apply to him, then what was the purpose of that entire conversation? EBsessed (talk) 21:33, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Both the manga and anime is the same thing, three wishes but two if mass revival. why would it be different? Sandubadear 00:19, March 9, 2015 (UTC)

Because, as I said already, I'm quite sure when Shenron is summoned in the anime after the Cell Games and summoned by Bulma in the Majin Buu saga, no matter which dub it is, he only offers two wishes before even knowing what the wishes are. Have you verified this or have you only verified what the manga says? I work from an employee computer at my workplace so I'm unable to use youtube here since it's blocked, so I'm unable to verify whether this is indeed the case or not. But I am quite sure the various dubs all have Shenron offering only a possible two wishes both after the Cell Games and during the Majin Buu saga. As far as I'm aware, aside from the manga and as far as anime and movies go, I believe the only time Shenron ever offers three possible wishes is in the English dub of Fusion Reborn, which would mean the manga and anime clearly treat this issue differently. And if you can verify that Shenron does in fact offer three possible wishes when summoned after the Cell Games in the manga, that would also help cement that the manga and anime handle Shenron differently. If Shenron, in the manga, only offers two wishes after being summoned after the Cell Games but offers three wishes in the Majin Buu saga, then Toriyama made a mistake and gave Shenron different abilities in each instance. EBsessed (talk) 20:16, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you're partially right. In the Cell saga, Shenron can grant two wishes, (I watched the Japanese version of episode 192), but in the Buu saga (Japanese version of episode 240) he says he can grant 3. So probably somewhere in the 7 years until the Buu saga, Dende upgrades Shenron again. Sandubadear 21:12, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

Or it's a simple inconsistency, since nobody in-universe ever offers any explanation for this oddity. The English dub has occasionally corrected mistakes in the original Japanese, like the explanation for Cell being able to regenerate not really making sense in the Japanese version but the English dialogue fixes it. This could be another case of the Japanese dialogue being inconsistent and the English dub fixing it. My final question is, how many wishes does Shenron offer after the Cell Games in the manga? That's the only thing we haven't looked into yet that would help sort all this out. If the manga's Shenron offers three wishes at that point AND in the Buu saga, then the Japanese anime gets it wrong in the Cell Games, corrects it with Bulma's summoning, and the English dialogue chose to fix the inconsistency by going with the two-wish rule. If the manga's Shenron offers two wishes in the Cell Games and three with Bulma's summoning (as you have shown), then that means the manga and Japanese anime are congruent but an explanation for the wish number changing is never given, and the English dialogue chooses to make it consistent rather than following the original dialogue of both the manga and Japanese anime. Shenron's wish count for the Cell Games in the manga is the final piece of the puzzle we need to figure this out. EBsessed (talk) 12:58, March 13, 2015 (UTC)

Just thought I'd stick my head in for a minute for a terminology clarification. For something to be considered an inconsistency, it must be a plot element that occurs, and is impossible based on another plot element. For example, in the Dragon Ball manga, Goku starts the second quest for the Dragon Balls after only eight months have passed. Everything we know ensures that this should have been 4 months too early, but Toriyama goes right ahead and does it anyway. This issue with Dragon Balls possibly changing from two to three wishes between Cell and Buu is not explicitly described, but it is certainly not impossible because Dende has demonstrated the power to change Shenron's abilities in the past. It should have been pointed out to us and not left for us to assume, but it is not an impossibility/inconsistency. That's all I wanted to say, carry on : ) --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 17:41, March 13, 2015 (UTC)

I just read the chapter 417 and 418 of the manga (Cell saga, the manga equivalents of the episode Goku's Decision), and there's really no mention on how many wishes Shenron can grant. Before Shenron could say anything, Yamcha asks to revive the people killed. Then, Shenron asks for another wish. I guess the anime staff mistook and thought it was restricted to only two wishes, but the intention was for it to be three all along. Sandubadear 17:54, March 13, 2015 (UTC)

So then it looks like the final conclusion of all this is that the English anime makes the rule to be two wishes only, no matter what the wishes are, and in the manga and Japanese dub, it's meant to be three wishes but only two if any of them involve mass revivals, yes? If that's the case, we should fix all the info regarding Dende's Shenron and his wish-granting abilities to note that this is the case. Perhaps mention the English dub's different rules in the various trivia sections or something. What do you think? EBsessed (talk) 21:39, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting on a response to this idea for a solution. With the way Shenron offers two wishes both in the Cell Games and in the Buu arc before knowing what the wishes are in the English dub, it looks like it takes Dende's rule as meaning two wishes only no matter what the wishes are. We should fix all info about the Earth dragon balls and Dende's Shenron on the various pages to reflect this discovery. EBsessed (talk) 18:33, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

In the anime, Japanese dub of Cell games, Shenron also says two wishes. But in the manga he doesn't say anything, simply grants two wishes. My opinion is that the anime staff mistook this and made him speak that it was only two. Sandubadear 18:38, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it seems as though the Japanese anime team had to assume how many wishes Shenron had to offer since the manga didn't say and they went with the two-wish rule. This is the same thing that happened with Vegeta's and Nappa's coloring when they were in space; the Japanese anime team had to assume their colors since they hadn't been revealed in the manga yet. So they assumed the two-wish rule in the Cell Games part of the anime, and when the manga later revealed it was three wishes in the Buu arc, they corrected it and made Shenron's dialogue reflect the correction when he was summoned by Bulma. Thus, the Japanese version is inconsistent (regardless of 10X Kamehameha's definition of the word being only something not possible in the DB world, according to dictionary definition "inconsistent" means anything that changes and does not stay the same, and thus, the Japanese version is indeed inconsistent by definition) because the number of wishes Shenron can offer after Dende revives him changes, and without explanation at that. However, the English version of the anime likely took the two-wish rule from the Cell Games and thought the three wish offer in the Buu arc was a mistake since it was inconsistent with the Cell Games wish offer, so they stuck with the two-wish rule. Then, in Fusion Reborn, they either made a mistake and had him say three wishes, or they found out it was meant to be three wishes all along, realized their mistake, and made it three wishes for that film. But that's even stranger since the Japanese version of the film has Shenron offer two wishes. Maybe what actually happened was Toriyama, forgetful as he is, actually made a mistake with the Buu arc summoning in the manga and had Shenron offer three wishes when it was supposed to be two. Either way, the whole thing is a big mess. Looks like we'll have to go into the trivia sections on the various pages and make note of this. Do you agree? EBsessed (talk) 20:29, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

Actually EBsessed, calling this an inconsistency because it is something that changes throughout the series is the wrong approach. An inconsistency as used by fans must be a plot element that occurs, and is impossible based on another plot element. By your definition, Goku becoming a Super Saiyan is inconsistent, because he is not always a Super Saiyan in the series. Yes you can point to an alternate definition and say this is correct out of context, but within the context of this site it does not make sense. For some examples of inconsistencies as they apply to series events, please check out this article: List of inconsistencies. I'd urge you not to get too caught up in semantics, because I sense this conversation may head down an unproductive road. The takeaway is that you are correct from a certain point of view, but the wording is not appropriate in this context. --

10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 04:12, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Tenny, Tenny! Your talk page is locked so I can't send you messages!

Sandubadear

11:39, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that was from when I archived it. You should be all set now. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 21:07, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

First of all 10X, by saying my use of "inconsistency" was wrong, you yourself began a debate on semantics. A change in and of itself is not an inconsistency, so no, Goku going Super Saiyan is not an inconsistency and your comparison to that issue is not accurate. A change to an established rule without explanation is an inconsistency, i.e. Shenron being able to grant three wishes later down the road when it had been established earlier that he can only grant two, without any explanation given for the change. There was never any rule established against saiyans being able to go Super Saiyan, and in fact it follows the lore as Vegeta revealed the existence of the Super Saiyan legend. However, when a rule has been established that things must be a certain way, and then later something doesn't follow that established rule and no explanation is given for how or why that is, I'd call that an inconsistency. Perhaps you don't like debating semantics (even though you started the semantics debate here), but words and the meaning behind them is the most important thing to humanity. Words and their meaning are what give us culture and the ability to understand one another, and we wouldn't have a wiki if it weren't for words and the meaning they hold, so yes, it is important to discuss their meaning and intention. Perhaps this wiki has its own definition of the word, but calling this matter inconsistent is not incorrect according to Webster, and to try to tell me I was wrong simply because you choose a different definition feels petty, especially when following it up by telling me not to debate semantics.

Secondly, your response did not answer the question I posed, which was, "Now that we know: 1) how messy the whole wish rule is between the manga, the Japanese anime, and the English anime, 2) that the Japanese anime messed up Shenron's dialogue in the Cell Games because they didn't know the rule was three wishes and instead they interpreted it the way I did, with it being two wishes no matter what, not two wishes only if one of the wishes involves numerous resurrections, and later fixed it in the Buu arc when the manga revealed it actually was the three wish rule, just the same way as they messed up Vegeta's and Nappa's colors in space because they didn't know and later fixed it without explanation when they did find out, and 3) the English anime keeps the rule as always and consistently being two wishes only, except for the film Fusion Reborn, then we should add mentions of all this to the various pages that discuss Dende's Shenron and the number of wishes he is able to grant. Agreed?" So, as you do not appear to want to debate semantics further (although I don't mind personally), let's stop talking about it and instead get to the root of this issue by attempting to reach an agreement on how to handle this new information about Shenron's wish number in the various Dragon Ball media. I mean no ill intent as you seem to feel. I'm simply a very aggressive debater who has disagreed with you on occasion. That's the purpose of a talk page, after all - to discuss things we disagree on. I'm not upset about anything, I'm simply doing what I feel is my duty as a fellow contributor to this wiki by sparking discussion about things that seem incorrect or insufficiently informative, and as of now, the information about Dende's Shenron and his wish granting abilities is incorrect on some pages and insufficient on others, especially with this new information that the various media all handles the rule differently. No hard feelings, it's just a matter that needs tending to. EBsessed (talk) 18:58, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you think I harbor ill will, and if you ask people who have known me for a while on here they'll tell you how impersonal I tend to be. When I'm wrong I freely admit it, and when two people argue I take sides based on the facts and not the users. I like to avoid semantic debates because I find they lack substance, as this one most certainly does. What I mean is I agree with what you and Sandubadear have discussed about the number of wishes changing between incarnations and media types, and I just don't want you to end up using the word "inconsistency" in an article in an improper context. What you've said so far makes me think you might do this because two messages ago you said "according to dictionary definition "inconsistent" means anything that changes and does not stay the same, and thus, the Japanese version is indeed inconsistent by definition". Now you just said "A change in and of itself is not an inconsistency". I've already defined above how we use the term inconsistency on this site and something changing over time within the constraints of rules we know to be true in DB does not qualify. As another example, the color change you mentioned is not categorized as an inconsistency here either, it is categorized as an animation error. It's not your fault that you don't know that, it's just a matter of getting experience editing on a particular wiki for a long time to understand it's unique style. On another wiki you might have been right. Feel free to post your findings in the articles as appropriate, but don't call it an inconsistency in the articles when you do. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 21:07, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think you harbored ill will, rather, I thought you believed I was harboring ill will. With your line "I'd urge you not to get too caught up in semantics, because I sense this conversation may head down an unproductive road," I thought you took my tone as being upset when I was not. And for the record, I wouldn't have used "inconsistency" in an article when this wiki defines an inconsistency in a very specific way, I was simply using the term as it applied to the discussion, as if we were talking in person in normal conversation, and of course normal conversation doesn't adhere to wiki rules. Basically, I consider talk pages a different matter to the articles: talk pages aren't official, articles are, so by that logic I consider it okay to use unofficial language here, and to use official language on the pages themselves. Thanks for resolving this, I'm glad we can get more information out there about this wish number craziness. EBsessed (talk) 21:07, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like we're on the same page. Semantic arguments can be pretty rough here. I've seen edit wars escalate into cursing and personal attacks and then into blocks because two users can't agree whether a character is cocky or overconfident, or if someone is only surprised or in disbelief. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.^._.^.^.talk_.^.^.^._.contrib. 23:23, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

Spice boys[]

question the guy under burter is he vinegar?(Spice boys (talk) 00:18, May 10, 2015 (UTC)

can someone please anwser my question? the guy looks a little like vinegar (Spice boys (talk) 02:32, May 11, 2015 (UTC)

do you think its possible the yellow belt guy behind frieza was drum or tambourine? because they have the same belt on the pants it at the scene were Cui is seen (Spice boys (talk) 02:44, September 12, 2015 (UTC)

Hitler doesn't apear in the polish dub of this movie[]

"However, the scene is still available on the Polish versions." - this is not true, Hitler doesn't apear in the polish dub at all (most likely becuase polish 2000s born kids would say that two brat killed him) unless you guys meant his armyBH Ouji (talk) 19:18, March 1, 2020 (UTC)